Cengage Advantage Books: Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business 3rd Edition by Marianne Jennings

Exercise 11

Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund 251 P.3d 118 (Mont. 2011)
A Bear of a Worker's Compensation Case
Facts
Great Bear Adventures (Park) is located near West Glacier, Montana. Visitors to the Park enjoy a drivethrough experience of bears in their natural habitat.
Russell Kilpatrick owns the Park and lives on adjacent property. Brock Hopkins began working there in 2002, doing various tasks, including maintenance and feeding the bears. In the past, some workers have been known to smoke marijuana on the premises. Although Kilpatrick professed to not condone marijuana use by workers, he had smoked marijuana at the Park in the past, and on occasion had done so with Hopkins.
On November 2, 2007, Hopkins smoked marijuana on his way into work. When he arrived, Hopkins asked Kilpatrick if he should feed the bears as well. Testimony regarding Kilpatrick's answer conflicted. However, the Workers' Compensation Commission (WCC) ultimately found that Kilpatrick never told Hopkins not to feed the bears.
Hopkins mixed food for the bears and used Kilpatrick's truck to drive into the Park. He entered the bears' pen and began to place food out. At some point while Hopkins was working, the largest bear, Red, attacked him. The bear knocked Hopkins to the ground, sat on him, and bit his leg, knee, and rear-end. While this was occurring, another bear, Brodie, came up from behind, and bit Red. In response, Red moved off Hopkins momentarily, and Hopkins escaped by crawling under one of the electrified wires surrounding the pen. Kilpatrick eventually found Hopkins, and he was transported to the hospital by helicopter. He suffered severe injuries.
Kilpatrick did not carry workers' compensation insurance.
The WCC found for Hopkins, concluding that (1) Hopkins was employed by Kilpatrick at the time of Hopkins' injuries, (2) Hopkins was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injuries, (3) marijuana use was not the major contributing cause of Hopkins' injuries, and (4) Hopkins was not performing services in return for aid or sustenance only. Kilpatrick appealed.
Judicial Opinion
MCGRATH, Chief Justice
Hopkins had worked at the Park since 2002, received regular payments from Kilpatrick, and engaged in tasks at Kilpatrick's command. Furthermore, Kilpatrick's assertion that Hopkins was a volunteer is without support.
As the WCC stated, "[t]here is a term of art used to describe the regular exchange of money for favors-it is called 'employment.'"
On November 2, 2007, Kilpatrick compelled Hopkins to work at the Park. Even though there was conflicting testimony as to whether Kilpatrick agreed that Hopkins should feed the bears on that day, an employee's injuries are compensable unless the employee is not "attending to employment-related matters" and has abandoned the course and scope of his employment. Feeding the bears was one of Hopkins' regular employment duties.
Hopkins testified he was engaged in the "same routine" he had done for two or three years and would not have fed the bears had Kilpatrick expressly so instructed him. Feeding the bears was not a personal activity "severed" from the continuity of Hopkins' employment-related duties at the Park. Additionally, the WCC found that "Kilpatrick benefitted from the care and feeding of the bears that Hopkins provided since presumably customers are unwilling to pay cash to see dead and emaciated bears." Hopkins was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injuries.
Non-prescription drug consumption will preclude an injured employee's benefits if consumption was the leading cause contributing to the result, when compared to all others. The WCC aptly noted, "Hopkins' use of marijuana to kick off a day of working around grizzly bears was ill-advised to say the least and mindbogglingly stupid to say the most." However, the WCC further noted that grizzlies are "equal opportunity maulers," without regard to marijuana consumption.
Without evidence of Hopkins' level of impairment, the WCC correctly concluded that marijuana was not the major contributing cause of Hopkins' injuries. Kilpatrick testified that he gave money to Hopkins, not as wages, but rather "out of his heart." The WCC found this testimony to be without credibility.
Affirmed.
Case Questions
1. Why was the question of actual employment an issue?
2. What does the court mean when it says that "bears are equal opportunity maulers"?
3. Of what significance is the confusion about the duty to feed the bears?