Prows v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF UTAH
610 P.2d 1362, 1980 Utah LEXIS 916 (1980)
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 if the employee's participation does not constitute a substantial deviation from the course of employment. The substantiality of the deviation is determined by a four-part test analyzing the extent, completeness, custom, and foreseeability of the horseplay.
Facts:
- Michael Prows was employed as a truck driver for Bergin Brunswig Company, with duties that included loading medical supplies.
- The supply boxes were secured with large rubber bands, which employees frequently used for 'rubber band fights'.
- Prows and a coworker testified the fights were an almost daily occurrence, while a supervisor testified he saw them two or three times a month and discouraged them.
- On March 3, 1978, while loading his truck, two co-employees flipped rubber bands at Prows.
- Prows retaliated by flipping a rubber band back at them.
- A co-employee then grabbed a piece of wood and brandished it like a sword.
- Prows took the wood, placed a large rubber band between the handles of his hand truck, and attempted to launch the piece of wood in a slingshot fashion.
- The piece of wood flew backward and struck Prows in the right eye, causing a severe injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Prows applied to the Industrial Commission for Workmen’s Compensation benefits.
- An administrative law judge conducted a hearing and entered an order denying Prows's application for benefits.
- The judge found that Prows had completely abandoned his duties and that the accident did not arise in the scope of his employment.
- Prows filed a Motion for Review with the Industrial Commission.
- The Industrial Commission adopted the administrative law judge's findings and denied Prows's motion.
- Prows (Petitioner) appealed the Commission's final order to the Utah Supreme Court.
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 actively participates in workplace horseplay arise out of and in the course of employment, making it compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, when the horseplay constitutes a brief and foreseeable deviation from work duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, Justice
Yes, the injury arises out of and in the course of employment. An employee's participation in horseplay does not automatically bar recovery for a resulting injury; compensation is appropriate if the horseplay was not a substantial deviation from employment. The court adopted a four-part test to analyze such deviations, weighing: (1) the extent and seriousness of the deviation, (2) the completeness of the deviation, (3) the extent to which horseplay had become a part of the employment, and (4) the foreseeability of such horseplay in that work environment. Here, the deviation was brief and trivial in nature despite its serious outcome, it was commingled with Prows's work duties rather than being a complete abandonment, the rubber band fights were a known and regular custom, and the presence of the rubber bands and wood pallets made such activity foreseeable. Therefore, the injury is compensable as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Hall, Justice
No, the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The determination of whether an employee's actions constitute a deviation from employment is a question of fact for the Industrial Commission, not a question of law for an appellate court. The Commission had substantial evidence to support its finding that Prows had completely abandoned his duties, including Prows's own admission that he was not performing an assigned duty and was the 'aggressor' in launching the wood. The court should defer to the fact-finder's reasonable conclusion that Prows completely abandoned his duties and affirm the denial of compensation.
Analysis:
This decision modernizes Utah's workers' compensation law by rejecting the older, strict 'aggressor defense' which often barred recovery for any participant in horseplay. By adopting the more nuanced 'substantial deviation' test from Larson's treatise, the court acknowledges the realities of the modern workplace where minor, momentary diversions are common. This precedent shifts the legal focus from employee fault to whether the horseplay was a foreseeable risk of the employment conditions. The case sets a new analytical framework for future horseplay-related injury claims, making it more likely that employees injured in similar, brief incidents will be compensated.
