personal comfort doctrine in Wisconsin

2019(Emphasis added.) 5 No. 2018AP1799 ¶10 A deviation for a personal purpose that is reasonably necessary for living or incidental thereto is known as the “personal comfort doctrine.” Recognized first in Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission, 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 (1915), our supreme court explained that the personal comfort doctrine was devised to cover the situation where an employee is injured while taking a brief pause from his labors to minister to the various necessities of life.

2019(Emphasis added.) 5 No. 2018AP1799 ¶10 A deviation for a personal purpose that is reasonably necessary for living or incidental thereto is known as the “personal comfort doctrine.” Recognized first in Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission, 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 (1915), our supreme court explained that the personal comfort doctrine was devised to cover the situation where an employee is injured while taking a brief pause from his labors to minister to the various necessities of life.

2000The court recognized that in limited fact situations, recovery may also be allowed for off-premises injuries: In Krause v. Western Casualty & Surety Co., 3 Wis. 2d 61 , 87 N.W.2d 875 (1958) and Van Roy v. Industrial Comm., 5 Wis. 2d 416 , 92 N.W.2d 818 (1958), this court allowed an employee to recover worker's compensation benefits for injuries that occurred off the employer's premises in limited fact situations.

2000The court recognized that in limited fact situations, recovery may also be allowed for off-premises injuries: In Krause v. Western Casualty & Surety Co., 3 Wis. 2d 61 , 87 N.W.2d 875 (1958) and Van Roy v. Industrial Comm., 5 Wis. 2d 416 , 92 N.W.2d 818 (1958), this court allowed an employee to recover worker's compensation benefits for injuries that occurred off the employer's premises in limited fact situations.

2019The court further explained that “[e]mployees who, within the time and space limits of their employment, engage in acts which minister to personal comfort do not thereby leave the course of employment, unless the extent of the departure is so great that an intent to abandon the job temporarily may be inferred,” or if “the method chosen is so unusual and unreasonable that the conduct cannot be considered an incident of the employment.” Marmolejo, 92 Wis. 2d at 680 (citation omitted). ¶11 Our supreme court addressed the personal comfort doctrine in Dibble v. DILHR, 40 Wis. 2d 341, 346 , 161 N.W.

2019The court further explained that “[e]mployees who, within the time and space limits of their employment, engage in acts which minister to personal comfort do not thereby leave the course of employment, unless the extent of the departure is so great that an intent to abandon the job temporarily may be inferred,” or if “the method chosen is so unusual and unreasonable that the conduct cannot be considered an incident of the employment.” Marmolejo, 92 Wis. 2d at 680 (citation omitted). ¶11 Our supreme court addressed the personal comfort doctrine in Dibble v. DILHR, 40 Wis. 2d 341, 346 , 161 N.W.

2000LIRC's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 102.03 (1)(c)1 3 and the personal comfort doctrine, or the application of the statute and the doctrine to stipulated facts, presents a question of law. 4 See Secor v. LIRC, 2000 WI App 11 ¶ 8 , 232 Wis. 2d 519 , 606 N.W.2d 175 (once the facts are established, the application of those facts to the statute is a question of law).

2000LIRC's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 102.03 (1)(c)1 3 and the personal comfort doctrine, or the application of the statute and the doctrine to stipulated facts, presents a question of law. 4 See Secor v. LIRC, 2000 WI App 11 ¶ 8 , 232 Wis. 2d 519 , 606 N.W.2d 175 (once the facts are established, the application of those facts to the statute is a question of law).

2000We therefore apply one of three levels of deference to LIRC's legal conclusions about the interpretation and application of § 102.03(1)(c)1 and the personal comfort doctrine: "great weight," "due weight," or "de novo." See *581 Bammert v. LIRC, 2000 WI App 28, ¶ 4 , 232 Wis. 2d 365 , 606 N.W.2d 620 .

2000We therefore apply one of three levels of deference to LIRC's legal conclusions about the interpretation and application of § 102.03(1)(c)1 and the personal comfort doctrine: "great weight," "due weight," or "de novo." See *581 Bammert v. LIRC, 2000 WI App 28, ¶ 4 , 232 Wis. 2d 365 , 606 N.W.2d 620 .

2000Co., 3 Wis. 2d 61 , 87 N.W.2d 875 (1958) (riding in employer's car to restaurant for coffee); American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 1 Wis. 2d 261 , 83 N.W.2d 714 (1957) (resting on boxes in work area during noon hour); Karlslyst v. Industrial Comm'n, 243 Wis. 612 , 11 N.W.2d 179 (1943) (urinating while standing on running board of moving truck); Yawkey-Bissell Lumber Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 215 Wis. 99 , 253 N.W. 793 (1934) (self-medication in a lumber camp); Wisconsin Mut.

2000Co., 3 Wis. 2d 61 , 87 N.W.2d 875 (1958) (riding in employer's car to restaurant for coffee); American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 1 Wis. 2d 261 , 83 N.W.2d 714 (1957) (resting on boxes in work area during noon hour); Karlslyst v. Industrial Comm'n, 243 Wis. 612 , 11 N.W.2d 179 (1943) (urinating while standing on running board of moving truck); Yawkey-Bissell Lumber Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 215 Wis. 99 , 253 N.W. 793 (1934) (self-medication in a lumber camp); Wisconsin Mut.

2000While our supreme court determined that the issue presented in Byers warranted de novo review, we are not convinced the same rationale is applicable in the instant case. 6 The injured employee was allowed to recover benefits under the WCA in the following cases, some of which explicitly cite the personal comfort doctrine and others which have subsequently been identified as personal comfort doctrine cases: Horvath v. Industrial Comm'n, 26 Wis. 2d 253 , 131 N.W.2d 876 (1965) (teacher driving home to change clothes to return for banquet at school); Van Roy v. Industrial Comm'n, 5 Wis. 2d 416 , 9

2000While our supreme court determined that the issue presented in Byers warranted de novo review, we are not convinced the same rationale is applicable in the instant case. 6 The injured employee was allowed to recover benefits under the WCA in the following cases, some of which explicitly cite the personal comfort doctrine and others which have subsequently been identified as personal comfort doctrine cases: Horvath v. Industrial Comm'n, 26 Wis. 2d 253 , 131 N.W.2d 876 (1965) (teacher driving home to change clothes to return for banquet at school); Van Roy v. Industrial Comm'n, 5 Wis. 2d 416 , 9

2000The personal comfort doctrine does not apply, and an employee is not within the course of employment, if the "extent of the departure is so great that an intent to abandon the job temporarily may be inferred, or . . . the method chosen is so unusual and unreasonable that the conduct cannot be considered an incident of the employment." Weiss, 208 Wis. 2d at 106 . ¶ 11.

2000While our supreme court determined that the issue presented in Byers warranted de novo review, we are not convinced the same rationale is applicable in the instant case. 6 The injured employee was allowed to recover benefits under the WCA in the following cases, some of which explicitly cite the personal comfort doctrine and others which have subsequently been identified as personal comfort doctrine cases: Horvath v. Industrial Comm'n, 26 Wis. 2d 253 , 131 N.W.2d 876 (1965) (teacher driving home to change clothes to return for banquet at school); Van Roy v. Industrial Comm'n, 5 Wis. 2d 416 , 9

2000While our supreme court determined that the issue presented in Byers warranted de novo review, we are not convinced the same rationale is applicable in the instant case. 6 The injured employee was allowed to recover benefits under the WCA in the following cases, some of which explicitly cite the personal comfort doctrine and others which have subsequently been identified as personal comfort doctrine cases: Horvath v. Industrial Comm'n, 26 Wis. 2d 253 , 131 N.W.2d 876 (1965) (teacher driving home to change clothes to return for banquet at school); Van Roy v. Industrial Comm'n, 5 Wis. 2d 416 , 9

2000Co., 3 Wis. 2d 61 , 87 N.W.2d 875 (1958) (riding in employer's car to restaurant for coffee); American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 1 Wis. 2d 261 , 83 N.W.2d 714 (1957) (resting on boxes in work area during noon hour); Karlslyst v. Industrial Comm'n, 243 Wis. 612 , 11 N.W.2d 179 (1943) (urinating while standing on running board of moving truck); Yawkey-Bissell Lumber Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 215 Wis. 99 , 253 N.W. 793 (1934) (self-medication in a lumber camp); Wisconsin Mut.

2000Co., 3 Wis. 2d 61 , 87 N.W.2d 875 (1958) (riding in employer's car to restaurant for coffee); American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 1 Wis. 2d 261 , 83 N.W.2d 714 (1957) (resting on boxes in work area during noon hour); Karlslyst v. Industrial Comm'n, 243 Wis. 612 , 11 N.W.2d 179 (1943) (urinating while standing on running board of moving truck); Yawkey-Bissell Lumber Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 215 Wis. 99 , 253 N.W. 793 (1934) (self-medication in a lumber camp); Wisconsin Mut.

2000Co., 3 Wis. 2d 61 , 87 N.W.2d 875 (1958) (riding in employer's car to restaurant for coffee); American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 1 Wis. 2d 261 , 83 N.W.2d 714 (1957) (resting on boxes in work area during noon hour); Karlslyst v. Industrial Comm'n, 243 Wis. 612 , 11 N.W.2d 179 (1943) (urinating while standing on running board of moving truck); Yawkey-Bissell Lumber Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 215 Wis. 99 , 253 N.W. 793 (1934) (self-medication in a lumber camp); Wisconsin Mut.

2000Co., 3 Wis. 2d 61 , 87 N.W.2d 875 (1958) (riding in employer's car to restaurant for coffee); American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 1 Wis. 2d 261 , 83 N.W.2d 714 (1957) (resting on boxes in work area during noon hour); Karlslyst v. Industrial Comm'n, 243 Wis. 612 , 11 N.W.2d 179 (1943) (urinating while standing on running board of moving truck); Yawkey-Bissell Lumber Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 215 Wis. 99 , 253 N.W. 793 (1934) (self-medication in a lumber camp); Wisconsin Mut.

2000Co. v. LIRC, 229 Wis. 2d 416, 423 , 600 N.W.2d 186 (Ct. App. 1999), and in this case LIRC's conclusion of law, based on its application of § 102.03(l)(c)l and the personal comfort doctrine to the unique facts of this case, was not unreasonable.

2000Co. v. LIRC, 229 Wis. 2d 416, 423 , 600 N.W.2d 186 (Ct. App. 1999), and in this case LIRC's conclusion of law, based on its application of § 102.03(l)(c)l and the personal comfort doctrine to the unique facts of this case, was not unreasonable.

1979The personal comfort doctrine was first recognized in Wisconsin in Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial Comm., 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 (1915); Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm., 160 Wis. 633 , 152 N.W. 416 (1915).

1979Co., 161 Wis. 370 , 154 N.W. 640 ; Widell Co. v. Industrial Comm. 180 Wis. 179 , 192 N.W. 449 ); eating lunch on the premises (Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 ; Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Comm. 165 Wis. 600 , 162 N.W. 664 ); warming himself (Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 633 , 152 N.W. 416 ); sleeping in place provided (Holt L.

1979The personal comfort doctrine was first recognized in Wisconsin in Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial Comm., 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 (1915); Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm., 160 Wis. 633 , 152 N.W. 416 (1915).

1979Co., 161 Wis. 370 , 154 N.W. 640 ; Widell Co. v. Industrial Comm. 180 Wis. 179 , 192 N.W. 449 ); eating lunch on the premises (Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 ; Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Comm. 165 Wis. 600 , 162 N.W. 664 ); warming himself (Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 633 , 152 N.W. 416 ); sleeping in place provided (Holt L.

1979Co., 161 Wis. 370 , 154 N.W. 640 ; Widell Co. v. Industrial Comm. 180 Wis. 179 , 192 N.W. 449 ); eating lunch on the premises (Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 ; Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Comm. 165 Wis. 600 , 162 N.W. 664 ); warming himself (Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 633 , 152 N.W. 416 ); sleeping in place provided (Holt L.

1979Co., 161 Wis. 370 , 154 N.W. 640 ; Widell Co. v. Industrial Comm. 180 Wis. 179 , 192 N.W. 449 ); eating lunch on the premises (Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 ; Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Comm. 165 Wis. 600 , 162 N.W. 664 ); warming himself (Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 633 , 152 N.W. 416 ); sleeping in place provided (Holt L.

1979Co., 161 Wis. 370 , 154 N.W. 640 ; Widell Co. v. Industrial Comm. 180 Wis. 179 , 192 N.W. 449 ); eating lunch on the premises (Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 ; Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Comm. 165 Wis. 600 , 162 N.W. 664 ); warming himself (Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 633 , 152 N.W. 416 ); sleeping in place provided (Holt L.

1979Co., 161 Wis. 370 , 154 N.W. 640 ; Widell Co. v. Industrial Comm. 180 Wis. 179 , 192 N.W. 449 ); eating lunch on the premises (Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 ; Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Comm. 165 Wis. 600 , 162 N.W. 664 ); warming himself (Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 633 , 152 N.W. 416 ); sleeping in place provided (Holt L.

1979Co., 161 Wis. 370 , 154 N.W. 640 ; Widell Co. v. Industrial Comm. 180 Wis. 179 , 192 N.W. 449 ); eating lunch on the premises (Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 ; Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Comm. 165 Wis. 600 , 162 N.W. 664 ); warming himself (Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 633 , 152 N.W. 416 ); sleeping in place provided (Holt L.

1979Co., 161 Wis. 370 , 154 N.W. 640 ; Widell Co. v. Industrial Comm. 180 Wis. 179 , 192 N.W. 449 ); eating lunch on the premises (Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635 , 150 N.W. 998 ; Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Comm. 165 Wis. 600 , 162 N.W. 664 ); warming himself (Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 633 , 152 N.W. 416 ); sleeping in place provided (Holt L.

1978Super. 243 , 217 A.2d 140 (1966)) to show that a traveling employee who is away from home at the direction of his employer is covered by the personal comfort doctrine.