Carvalho v. Decorative Fabrics Co.
117 R.I. 231, 366 A.2d 157, 1976 R.I. LEXIS 1617 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained during workplace horseplay is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, regardless of whether the employee was an innocent victim or a participant, provided a sufficient nexus exists between the injury and the employment.
Facts:
- The petitioner, Carvalho, worked as a 'flock-boy' in the respondent's factory, handling yarn.
- At the end of each work shift, it was a customary practice for employees to use an airhose to clean accumulated lint and yarn off each other's clothing.
- On February 25, 1974, a fellow employee was cleaning yarn from Carvalho's clothing.
- During this cleaning, the coworker placed the airhose in the vicinity of Carvalho's rectum, causing an internal injury that knocked him to the floor.
- The coworker apologized and stated that the incident was 'an accident.'
- The following day, Carvalho experienced severe pain and was diagnosed at a hospital with a perforated rectum.
- As a result of the injury, Carvalho was unable to work for approximately six months.
Procedural Posture:
- The employee, Carvalho, filed an original petition for compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Commission.
- A trial commissioner for the commission denied and dismissed the petition, finding the injury resulted from 'horseplay' and did not arise out of employment.
- On review, the full Workmen's Compensation Commission affirmed the trial commissioner's decision.
- The employee appealed the full commission's decree to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's injury resulting from workplace 'horseplay' arise out of and in the course of employment, making it compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, even if the employee was a participant in the horseplay?
Opinions:
Majority - Bevilacqua, C. J.
Yes, an employee's injury resulting from workplace horseplay may be compensable, even for a participant, if it arises out of and in the course of employment. The court rejects the older, fault-based reasoning that automatically barred compensation for participants in horseplay, as such reasoning improperly reintroduces common law defenses that workers' compensation acts were designed to eliminate. The modern view recognizes that horseplay is a natural and foreseeable risk when people work in close association. The central inquiry is not whether the claimant was a victim or participant, but whether a causal nexus exists between the injury and the employment. This nexus is established by showing the horseplay is part of the work environment, which can be demonstrated if the activity is customary or involves instrumentalities provided by the employer, and does not constitute a substantial deviation from employment.
Concurring - Paolino, J.
Yes, the case should be remanded for further findings on the nexus between the injury and employment. However, the holding should be limited to the specific facts of this case due to the great potential for abuse. The concurrence expresses concern that broadly allowing compensation for horseplay could approximate the statutory exclusions for willful misconduct, and notes the only evidence of 'horseplay' was a single hearsay statement in a hospital record, justifying the need for a more thorough factual determination by the commission.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the jurisdiction with the modern trend in workers' compensation law, moving away from a rigid, fault-based analysis of horseplay injuries. By rejecting the distinction between an 'innocent victim' and a 'participant,' the court broadens the scope of compensable claims. It establishes that the key determinant is the connection to the work environment, focusing on factors like custom and the use of employer-provided tools. This creates a more flexible, context-dependent standard that recognizes the realities of the workplace, and it will require lower courts to analyze the nature of the horseplay itself rather than merely the claimant's role in it.
