Gibberd v. Control Data Corporation
Minnesota Supreme Court
424 N.W.2d 776 (1988)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Raymond P. Gibberd worked for Control Data Corporation (CDC) (defendant) as a computer consultant. Gibberd was a salaried employee who often worked nights and weekends, when fewer CDC employees were using the computers. Most CDC employees worked during the day shift, and CDC had a cafeteria that was open only during the day shift. However, vending machines and a microwave were always available. On the evening of August 26, 1985, Gibberd was working late repairing a computer. Gibberd left the CDC building to go to a nearby Wendy’s fast-food restaurant, located approximately 0.7 miles away. Employees often went to Wendy’s for meals. The CDC building was located in an inner-city area of St. Paul, Minnesota, that was considered economically depressed. CDC had a corporate policy of locating its work facilities in such areas. The area where this building was located had a higher crime rate than some areas in St. Paul but also had a similar crime rate to other areas of St. Paul, such as downtown St. Paul. Over the five previous years, employees had reported primarily minor crimes such as purse thefts, and only two had experienced assaults. While Gibberd was returning to work from Wendy’s, he was shot and killed by a third party. The person was never apprehended, and no motive for the killing was ever uncovered. Gibberd’s dependents (plaintiffs) filed a claim for workers’-compensation death benefits. The workers’-compensation judge concluded that the claim was not compensable, and the workers’-compensation court of appeals reversed. CDC appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kelley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.