mutual benefit doctrine in Missouri

2001The mutual benefit doctrine applies if an employee is injured while engaging in an act that benefits both the employer and the employee and “some advantage to the employer results from the employee’s conduct.” Id.

1996“For the doctrine to apply, the employee must suffer an injury while engaged in activity for the mutual benefit of the employer and employee even if it is the slightest benefit.” Stockman, 854 S.W.2d at 27 .

1993Corp., 190 S.W.2d 915 (Mo. banc 1945), in which the courts applied the mutual benefit doctrine and found the employees’ injuries compensable.

1969The mutual benefit doctrine was set out by the Missouri Supreme Court in Wamhoff v. Wagner Electric Corporation, 354 Mo. 711 , 190 S.W.2d 915, 1 . c. 919, 161 A.L.R. 1454 , wherein it was stated: “An injury suffered by an employee while performing an act for the mutual benefit of the employer and the employee is usually compen-sable, for when some advantage to the employer results from the employee’s conduct, his act cannot be regarded as purely personal and wholly unrelated to the employment.

2008In Wilson , we found that an employee's off-site solo bicycle ride during a partially paid break was not incidental to his employment. "[A] healthier, happier employee is ... not the type of benefit that invokes the mutual benefit doctrine." Id. at 50 .

2008In Wilson , we found that an employee’s off-site solo bicycle ride during a partially paid break was not incidental to his employment. “[A] healthier, happier employee is ... not the type of benefit that invokes the mutual benefit doctrine.” Id. at 50 .

2005Rogers, 972 S.W.2d at 543 .

2003The court, however, was unimpressed with claimant’s argument, and affirmed the Commission’s denial of benefits, stating that “[a] healthier, happier employee is a benefit to the employer, but it is not the type of benefit that invokes the mutual benefit doctrine.” Id.

2000Id. at 3 .

1996W.D.1994) “Under the mutual benefit doctrine, an injury suffered by an employee while performing an act for the mutual benefit of the employer and the employee is compensable when some advantage to the employer results from the employee’s conduct.” Id.

1995At oral argument, the parties argued the applicability of this court’s recent decision in Davis v. Research Medical Center, 903 S.W.2d 557 (1995).

1991Louis Board of Education, 577 S.W.2d 949 (Mo. App.1979) that an employee who slips and falls on a university campus while on his way to the cafeteria to buy a sandwich is compensable under the mutual benefit doctrine.

1991Louis Board of Education, 577 S.W.2d 949 (Mo.App.1979) that an employee who slips and falls on a university campus while on his way to the cafeteria to buy a sandwich is compensable under the mutual benefit doctrine.

1969Accordingly an injury resulting from such an act arises out of and in the course of the employment; and this rule is applicable even though the advantage to the employer is slight.” See also Liverman v. Wagner, Mo.App., 384 S.W.2d 107 .

1964Eventually, the indirect benefit to the employer becomes so tenuous as to be imperceptible, see 1 Larson, op.cit., Sections 20.20, pp. 296-297, and 27.22(b), pp. 411-412; Gaumer v. Industrial Commission, supra, 94 Ariz. 195 , 382 P.2d at 675 [5], and we agree with the Commission that in the present case any benefit which might have accrued to the employer because of the claimant’s participation in the boat dock project is so speculative and remote that the mutual benefit doctrine cannot be reasonably applied.