Ransom v. Atlas Bar, L.L.C., 060520 IDWC, IC 2019-009638

• Case Date: June 05, 2020
• Court: Idaho

LUCAS RANSOM, Claimant, v. ATLAS BAR, L.L.C., Employer, and IDAHO STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety, Defendants. No. IC 2019-009638 Idaho Workers Compensation Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho June 5, 2020          FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER           Thomas P. Baskin, Chairman.          INTRODUCTION          Pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-506, the Idaho Industrial Commission assigned the above-entitled matter to Referee John C. Hummel, who conducted a hearing in Boise on November 6, 2019. Margurit R. Cleverdon represented Claimant, Lucas Ransom, who was present in person. Paul J. Augustine represented Defendant Employer, Atlas Bar, L.L.C., and Defendant Surety, Idaho State Insurance Fund. The parties presented oral and documentary evidence, and later submitted briefs. The matter came under advisement on February 20, 2019. The undersigned Commissioners have reviewed the Referee’s proposed decision and have chosen not to adopt the Referee’s legal analysis and recommendation. The Commissioners hereby issue their own findings of fact, conclusions of law and order.          ISSUE          The sole issue to be decided by the Commission as the result of the hearing is as follows:

Whether Claimant sustained an injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

         CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES          Employer employed Claimant occasionally as a bouncer. On December 8, 2018, Claimant was working as a bouncer at his station outside the bar entrance when he observed an individual spray-painting, or “tagging,” the windows of the next-door business, a skate shop. Claimant followed the individual for approximately half a block to get a photo or video of the individual on Claimant’s cell phone to give to the police. Claimant and the individual then got into an altercation that resulted in Claimant’s leg being severely broken.          Claimant alleges that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. Defendants allege that the accident neither arose out of nor in the course of Claimant’s employment, and therefore Claimant is not entitled to worker’s compensation benefits.          EVIDENCE CONSIDERED          The record in this matter consists of the following:

1. Joint Exhibits 1 through 3, admitted at the hearing; and

2. The testimony of Claimant and Todd Asin, taken at the hearing.

         FINDINGS OF FACT          1. Claimant’s Background. At the time of hearing, Claimant was a resident of Nampa, Idaho. Tr. 9:8-9. He was 39 years old, having been born on April 14, 1980. Id. at 10:13-16.          2. At all relevant times, Claimant was self-employed as a motorcycle mechanic under the trade name Union Motorcycle Classics, or UMC, L.L.C. On occasion, however, Claimant performed services, or “odd jobs,” for other businesses, including for Employer. Tr. 10:17-11:5.          3. Background Circumstances. On the evening of December 8, 2018, Claimant was working as a bouncer for Employer, whose bar was located in downtown Boise on 11^th Street, between Grove and Main. Claimant was “filling in” for Employer’s regular bouncer who was on vacation. Tr. 11:6-21. Claimant was also scheduled to work on December 7 in addition to December 8. Id. at 12:2-3.          4. Claimant and Todd Asin, the owner of the bar, had been acquainted as friends for many years through their shared pastime of motorcycle riding. Asin had been a regular customer of Claimant’s motorcycle business. Id. at 12:6-9.          5. Asin previously hired Claimant as a fill-in bouncer in the spring of 2018 during the Treefort music festival. Claimant worked for Employer “two or three days” on that occasion. Id. at 12:10-23.          6. Claimant recalls that Asin and he never met specifically to go over his responsibilities as a bouncer. See id. at 13:1-6. Claimant testified that “[m]ost of the time it was just, hey, can you come help do this and I – don’t recall a specific time that was like a sit down and go over ground rules.” Id. at 13:4-6. Claimant did not receive “formal training” to perform his job as a bouncer. Id. at 13:22-25. Although Asin maintained a written description of the job responsibilities for the bouncer position, he did not recall sharing that written information with Claimant. Id. at 44:15-45:10, 55:19-56:12. However, both Claimant and Asin testified to their understanding of what was required of a bouncer. See id. at 25:4-27:3, 44:15-46:16.          7. Even though he did not remember receiving specific training, Claimant recalled that Asin wanted him to perform the job as follows:

Q. What, if anything, did Todd say when he asked you to work for him? How did he describe what he wanted you to do?

A. It was – let’s see. You know, obviously, checking IDs. Keeping out people who are inebriated. If there is anything – odd jobs to help out the bartender or just odd things, if it was help clean up or – just kind of keep the place flowing I guess.

…

Q. So, going back to this idea of instructions that you may have received from Mr. Asin, what kind of instructions did he give you about anything happening outside the patio?

A. If there was an obvious fight or something going on or if it was something like that, I was told that wasn’t something that I would want to get into, but not how I felt this situation was.

Q. With respect to people who are coming up to the bar that had too much to drink, were you instructed about what to do with them outside the patio?

A. Just not to let them in.

…

Q. My understanding is you don’t recall a specific conversation that you had with Todd Asin regarding the ground rules that he expected of you as a bouncer at the Atlas Bar.

A. I don’t recall a specific time.

Q. You – you did spend a lot of time there at the bar you said; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You knew about how he wanted his business run; is that correct?

A. Yeah. Yes.

Q. And you – I’m assuming you saw bouncers there working during your time at the bar; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you, obviously, had some understanding of what your responsibilities were as a bouncer at the Atlas Bar on December 8, 2018; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So, you knew that you had to check IDs; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You knew that you had to keep obviously intoxicated people out of the bar; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You knew that you were not allowed – that you were to – you were to avoid allowing people who are in the bar to walk out of the bar with alcohol, I assume; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You knew that if – I assume if there was a scuffle in a bar – inside of the bar that you would remove them out of the bar and get them to an area in the streets or on the sidewalk; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. He knew that your main obligation was to act as a gatekeeper to avoid allowing people that shouldn’t be in the bar into the bar and avoid allowing people that weren’t – to be – that were supposed to stay in the bar, to allow them to get out of the bar; is that correct?

A. Correct.

…

Q. Did Mr. – did Mr. Asin ever communicate with you – to you at anytime that as a bouncer you – your job duties were to stay on your post to make sure that people who were not supposed to be in the bar did not get in the bar?

A. I don’t recall that.

Tr. 14:1-8, 23:25-24:11, 25:4-26:19, 29:1-6. As set forth above, Claimant testified that he had received instructions that he was not to involve himself in altercations taking place outside the patio. However, when questioned by the Referee he gave a slightly different answer:

Q. Was there – just to be clear, was there any discussion before you performed this job for the first time about what your responsibilities, if any, were to the areas outside the bar and the patio

...