Horseplay at Work - Do Businesses Need to Be Concerned?
Here's an interesting question that arose in Delaware which came to our attention through Francis Pileggi at the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog. It's slightly off topic, but you don't often see facts like this, so the story is worth telling.
Injuries to employees that occur at work are usually subject to the exclusive remedy provided by each state's Worker's Compensation system. What happens, however, when employees are engaged in "horseplay" during business hours that results in an injury? Is the injured employee limited to his remedy in comp, or does he have the ability to recover against co-employees outside of the comp system?
In Grabowski v. Mangler, the employer apparently tolerated an atmosphere in which employees would play pranks on each other in between assignments. In this particular case the plaintiff was ambushed by three co-workers, thrown to the ground, and wrapped from his shoulders to his anklesin duct tape. Normally claims against the co-employees would be barred.
The Delaware Supreme Court said that if the conduct of the rambunctious employees was within the scope or course of their employment, then Worker's Comp would bar the plaintiff's lawsuit. If not within the scope or course of their employment, then the claim would be allowed. The case was sent back to the trial court to make that determination. We will let you know if we see more on this one. If for no other reason than that I'm interested to find out how binding a co-worker in duct tape fits in anyone's job description.
Posted In Workers Comp | Comments (0) | Permalink |
Workers' Compensation: One Toke Over the Causation Line?
Maybe the lifestyle in South Dakota really is more laid-back than here in the high-pressure East. Thomas VanSteenwyck worked for Baumgartner Trees and Landscaping as a laborer and landscaper. He was a regular marijuana smoker for many years. He didn't smoke on the job, but relaxed with the evil weed after work and in the evenings.
After an evening in which he smoked between 3 and 5 joints, VanSteenwyck went to work in the morning, where he worked on a piece of equipment known as a skid loader. Witnesses testified that he showed no signs of impairment. While so engaged he suffered a serious crush injury.
On VanSteenwyck's application for comp benefits there was conflicting expert testimony as to whether he was impaired by his marijuana usage. One doctor said yes, one said no. So, with apologies to Brewer & Shipley, was VanSteenwyck "one toke over the line"? The evidence probably could have supported a finding either way.
The critical finding was the lack expert testimony that, even if he was impaired, the impairment was a proximate cause of his injury. The Department of Labor awarded benefits.
The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed, in an opinion here.
So, at least in the Mount Rushmore State, you can be one toke over the line and still collect workers' compensation benefits --- sometimes.
Posted In Workers Comp | Comments (0) | Permalink |
Workers Comp Benefits for Being Drunk & Tired
Tlumac v. High Bridge Stone is an interesting case from the New Jersey Supreme Court. It deals with the availability of workers compensation benefits for a truck driver who had been drinking, but for separate reasons may have been tired. He drove off the side of a highway, was injured, and applied for workers comp benefits. His employer opposed the application on the basis of a 1911 statute that denies benefits where intoxication proximately causes a work related injury.
Expert testimony put Mr. Tlumac's blood alcohol context between .10 and .18 at the time of the accident. However, he also presented evidence that he had been sleep deprived due to the need to care for his wife, and because he had been making repairs to his house.
Earlier cases interpreting the intoxication statute held that intoxication had to be the sole proximate cause of the injury for the defense to apply. Here Mr. Tlumac presented enough evidence to establish another concurrent cause for the accident in the form of sleepiness unrelated to alcohol. Thus, the court held that he was entitled to recover benefits.
So, yes, as odd as it sounds, you can't recover if you're just drunk. You can recover if you're both drunk and tired for another reason.
The Court took pains to point out that it was only carrying out the intention of the Legislature, but suggested that the Legislature might consider revisiting the nearly century old law to be sure that it comports with modern reality.
Posted In Workers Comp | Comments (0) | Permalink |