Cited by

Cook v. Wickson Trucking Co., 135 N.H. 150, 154 (1991); Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 218 (1977); Donnelly v. Kearsarge Tel.

Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 218 (1977).

Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 218 (1977).

We have held that in order to be compensable under our Workers’ Compensation Law, an “injury must result from the conditions and obligations of the employment and not merely from the bare existence of *326 the employment.” Heinz v. Concord Union School Dish, 117 N.H. 214, 217 (1977) (quotations omitted).

Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist.

“Accordingly, the employee can expect a liberal interpretation of when the employment begins or ends.” Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 220, 371 A.2d 1161, 1165 (1977) (quotation, brackets, and ellipses omitted).

e: “(1) that the injury arose out of employment by demonstrating that it resulted from a risk created by the employment, Maheux v. Cove-Craft Co., 103 N.H. 71, 74, 164 A.2d 574, 576 (1960); and (2) that the injury arose in the course of employment by demonstrating that (A) it occurred within the boundaries of time and space created by the terms of employment, Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 218, 371 A.2d 1161, 1164 (1977); and (B) it occurred in the performance of an activity

Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 219-20, 371 A.2d 1161, 1165 (1977).

Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 218, 371 A.2d 1161, 1164 (1977).

ove (1) that the injury arose out of employment by demonstrating that it resulted from a risk created by the employment, Maheux v. Cove-Craft Co., 103 N.H. 71, 74, 164 A.2d 574, 576 (1960); and (2) that the injury arose in the course of employment by demonstrating that (A) it occurred within the boundaries of time and space created by the terms of employment, Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 218, 371 A.2d 1161, 1164 (1977); and (B) it occurred in the performance of an activity

Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 219-20, 371 A.2d 1161, 1165 (1977).

In construing workers’ compensation legislation, we are mindful that “[i]t is the judicial obligation to administer the Workmen’s Compensation Act liberally.” Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 220, 371 A.2d 1161, 1165 (1977) (quoting Binet v. Ocean Gate Bd.

Second, the claimant must show that the injury arose in the course of employment: that the injury occurred within the time and space boundaries of employment, see Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 218, 371 A.2d 1161, 1164 (1977); United States F. & G. Co. v. Gagne, 103 N.H. 420, 423, 174 A.2d 406, 408 (1961), and during an activity whose purpose was related to employment, see Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 238-39, 221 A.2d 246, 247 (1966); Maltais v. Assuranc

Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 217, 371 A.2d 1161, 1163 (1977); LaBonte v. Nat’l Gypsum Co., 110 N.H. 314, 317, 269 A.2d 634, 636 (1970).

.” See New Hampshire Supply Co. v. Steinberg, 119 N.H. 223, 226, 400 A.2d 1163, 1165 (1979); Heinz v. Concord Union *16 School Dust, 117 N.H. 214, 217, 371 A.2d 1161, 1163 (1977).