## Facts

- James Hawk II was president, sole stockholder, chief operating officer, and an employee of Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., an auto dealership in Denison, Iowa.
- Hawk regularly used his privately owned airplane for dealership business.
- On September 28, 1973, Hawk flew from Denison to Council Bluffs to inspect cars for customers and to discuss vehicle sales with business associates.
- Hawk held only a student pilot certificate and flew without an instructor on a route exceeding limitations applicable to student pilots.
- After business activities, Hawk attended a social gathering and consumed alcohol.
- Around 2:30 a.m., in darkness and heavy fog, and within eight hours of drinking (contrary to applicable FAA rules), Hawk took off to return to Denison to be present for a morning dealership meeting.
- The airplane crashed shortly after takeoff, about one-half mile from the airport, killing Hawk.
- Expert testimony indicated that fog-related disorientation could have caused the crash regardless of alcohol use.
- A deputy industrial commissioner awarded workers’ compensation death benefits; on intra-agency review the industrial commissioner reversed, characterizing Hawk as being at a “prohibited place” and engaging in a “hazardous rash and unusual act.”
- On judicial review, the district court reversed the industrial commissioner and reinstated benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether Hawk’s death “arose out of and in the course of” employment when the fatal return flight was taken for business purposes but involved regulatory violations and dangerous conditions.
2. Whether the “unusual and rash act” doctrine, as applied in Iowa workers’ compensation law, removes an otherwise work-related injury from statutory coverage.
3. To what extent courts must defer under the substantial-evidence standard when an agency’s “findings of fact” are largely ultimate characterizations (e.g., “prohibited place,” “hazardous rash and unusual act”).

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court and reinstated the award of workers’ compensation death benefits.
- The court held Hawk’s death arose out of and in the course of employment.
- The court rejected the industrial commissioner’s denial based on the “unusual and rash act” doctrine as applied to these facts.
- The court treated the commissioner’s key “findings” as legal conclusions reviewable on judicial review, rather than binding determinations of disputed historical fact.

## Legal Principles

- Agency fact findings supported by substantial evidence are binding on review, but when operative facts are undisputed and only one reasonable inference follows, the remaining question is one of law.
- Whether an injury “arose out of and in the course of employment” involves both fact (what occurred and why) and law (whether those facts satisfy the statutory standard).
- An employee’s negligent, imprudent, or rule-violating manner of performing a work-related activity does not automatically defeat workers’ compensation coverage if the activity remains tied to the employer’s business and within the course of employment.
- Characterizing conduct as an “unusual and rash act” does not bar recovery unless the conduct breaks the employment connection (e.g., a substantial deviation into a purely personal activity or conduct foreign to the employment).

## Conclusion

The court held that a fatal crash during return travel undertaken to further the employer’s business remained compensable even though the employee’s method of travel involved serious regulatory violations and poor judgment, because those faults did not sever the required connection between the risk and the employment.


Hawk v. Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 282 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 1979)