Rod Satterwhite and David Greenspan are members of the Labor & Employment group at McGuireWoods LLP. Both handle employment litigation on behalf of employers, and advise companies on employment issues regularly.
posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 8:31 AM by Rod Satterwhite

Finally - A Story to Match Our Masthead

Last week, the Kansas Supreme Court joined the ranks of over twenty other states in recognizing that innocent victims of horseplay in the workplace may be entitled to workers’ compensation. Coleman v. Armour Swift-Eckrich, Kan., No. 94, 324 3/2406.

The case involves a plaintiff who leaned back in her chair while waiting for a meeting to start. The chair, of course, had little wheels on the bottom. Suddenly, it was like the plaintiff was back in fourth grade—a colleague grabbed the chair, and the plaintiff hit the floor (see image above). Who says work’s no fun?

The state administrative law judge denied the plaintiff’s claim for workers’ compensation. In so doing, the judge relied on a decision from 1918 which, until now, was the last word on the subject in Kansas. To give you some idea of the vintage of that decision, it involved a laborer who “playfully threw mortar into the eye” of a coworker.  (Happens all the time around here at the law firm.)

The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, thereby aligning itself with the modern trend in this goofy area of workers’ compensation law. If you’re an employer, nail those chairs to the floor before it’s too late. And if you haven’t done so already, make sure all that extra mortar is under lock and key.

Tell us what you think.  Should employees who are injured at work because of the horseplay of another employee, and not because of physically unsafe working conditions, be entitled to worker's comp?  How far should an employer have to go to prevent this horseplay?  What's reasonable?  Click here to add a comment and speak your piece.

Comments

# re: Finally - A Story to Match Our Masthead

Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:16 AM by DHartley
How about that the offender involved be legally required to handle all of the associated medical costs?

# re: Finally - A Story to Match Our Masthead

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:02 PM by Linda Pellegrin
It sounds more like a personal injury case to me.

Things are just getting out of hand as to how much liability the employer has for employees actions.

# re: Finally - A Story to Match Our Masthead

Friday, April 27, 2007 6:44 AM by Don Everett
While working as a temperary employee for Benier USA I was 'caught' in the cross fire of dough throwing horse play. Struck in the back of the head I jerked my head back to maintain my balance.ie whip lash stronger muscles won. Now 10 years later this incident is being used as ammunition against me in another Workes Comp case. At 6'4" and 300 pounds I could do some 'Real Damage' if I retaileated while angry. Would that be assault and battery? He hit me first. Wounder if that case is still open?

# Do I get workmens comp?

Friday, July 11, 2008 1:25 PM by John
While working one day at a supply company as a supervisor, two of my workers approached me and proceeded to tape me to a dolly. After having their "fun" one of the workers went to lift the dolly up. It was horizontal. The dolly tipped over, and having no way to brace my fall due to the fact they taped me to it, I fractured my collarbone. It is there contention that the horseplay was mutual, It is my contention that I was put in a situation that not only could I not move my body, therefore horseplay on my part could not have possibly taken place. I could not remove myself from the situation because I could not move. Workmens comp was denied, hearing August 15th.

# re: Finally - A Story to Match Our Masthead

Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:15 AM by tiwkojznjqk