Clodgo v. Rentavision, Inc.
701 A.2d 1044 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained by an employee who initiates and participates in dangerous horseplay is not compensable under workers' compensation if the activity constitutes a substantial deviation from employment duties.
Facts:
- Brian Clodgo was the manager of a Rentavision store.
- On July 22, 1995, during a slow period with no customers, Clodgo began firing staples from a staple gun at a co-worker.
- Clodgo fired approximately twenty or thirty staples at the co-worker, who was sitting on a couch.
- The co-worker initially protested but then retaliated by firing three staples back at Clodgo.
- As Clodgo ducked to avoid the staples, the third staple struck him in the eye, causing injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian Clodgo filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits with the Vermont Department of Labor and Industry.
- Rentavision, Inc., the employer, contested the award.
- Following a hearing, the Commissioner awarded workers' compensation benefits to Clodgo.
- Rentavision, Inc. (appellant) appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
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 injury sustained by an employee who initiated dangerous horseplay during a lull in business arise in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibson, J.
No. An injury sustained during horseplay does not arise in the course of employment when the employee's actions constitute a substantial deviation from his or her work duties. To determine whether an employee has deviated too far, the court considers four factors: the extent and seriousness of the deviation, the completeness of the deviation, the extent to which the activity had become an accepted part of the employment, and the extent to which the nature of the employment may be expected to include some horseplay. Here, shooting staples was obviously dangerous, indicating a serious deviation. The act was a complete abandonment of work duties, as it was unrelated to any legitimate use of the stapler. Finally, Rentavision did not consider staple-shooting acceptable behavior, and Clodgo's actions were not a reasonably expected part of his employment, even during idle periods. Therefore, the injury occurred during a substantial deviation from his duties and is not compensable.
Dissenting - Morse, J.
Yes. The injury did arise in the course of employment, and the court should defer to the Commissioner's factual findings. The dissent argues that the majority improperly substituted its own judgment for the Commissioner's. Applying the same four-factor test, the dissent finds the Commissioner's conclusion was reasonable. The deviation was not substantial because the employees were in a period of 'enforced idleness' with no duties to abandon. The horseplay was a 'commonplace occurrence' at the store and thus a 'tacit part of employment,' even if not officially condoned. Given that idleness is a fixture of retail work, some 'mischief' is to be expected. Because the Commissioner's application of the law to the facts was reasonable, the award should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'substantial deviation' doctrine as it applies to horseplay injuries in workers' compensation claims. It establishes that even during periods of work-related idleness, an employee's participation in horseplay can sever the connection to employment if the activity is particularly dangerous and entirely unrelated to work duties. The decision places a greater burden on claimants who actively initiate dangerous horseplay, distinguishing them from innocent non-participants. This precedent guides lower courts and commissioners in analyzing the specific nature of the horseplay rather than simply noting that it occurred during work hours or an idle period.
Unlock the full brief for Clodgo v. Rentavision, Inc.