Fowler Bell PLLC
call to talk with an attorney
859-554-2877
Talented Problem Solvers Since 1942

Horseplay: Ain't What It Used To Be

Horseplay: It ain't what it used to be.

by Scott M. Brown

On September 18, 2015 the Court of Appeals ("COA") published its decision in Hall Contracting of Ky., Inc. v. Huff, 2015-CA-000375-WC. ALJ Gott found that the injury was the result of Plaintiff's horseplay, and dismissed the claim. The Board reversed, the COA agreed with the Board.

The facts. Sunrise was at 6:13 a.m., the sky was clear per the meteorological report in evidence. The injury occurred at about 7:00 a.m. Huff and another worker found a round, black object the size of a tennis ball. Per Huff he looked it over for identifying marks, and lit his lighter to get a better look, the object blew up in his hand, severely injuring it. It was a firework. The ALJ rejected Huff's explanation. "The ALJ held that Huff had ventured outside the course and scope of his employment when he ignited his lighter 'to amuse' himself and White with what he believed was a smoke bomb." The Board, which does not have fact-finding powers, concluded that "as a matter of law" Huff was in the course of his employment, as he had a duty to determine if the object was dangerous, though he exercised poor judgment.

Not surprisingly, Hall Contracting appealed the Board's decision, arguing that they substituted their judgment for the ALJ's. The COA was no help though. "Huff's testimony was unequivocal that any foreign object found at the workplace had to be retrieved and inspected." The Court concluded that: "No indication of horseplay was present other than in the speculation of the ALJ and in the self-serving interpretation of events by Hall Contracting." As such Justice Stumbo affirmed the Board.

In his concurring opinion (an unusual occurrence with the COA), Justice Nickell concluded that the exploding firework was an unintended, unforeseen, and unfortunate accident. He also decided to define "horseplay" for us. In sum, when it's "a 'stupid decision' or an act of ignorance, poor judgment, negligence, investigation, curiosity, impulse, or otherwise, it is not 'horseplay.'

In a dissent, Justice VanMeter concluded that the Board substituted its judgment for that of the ALJ. Hall's Human Resource Manager testified: 'Huff told her that he had lit the object, and that the reason he had done so was because he thought it was a smoke bomb.' The ALJ found that Huff was aware the object was a firework or smoke bomb and that he was trying to light it. 'When one of two reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, the finders of fact may choose.' Jackson v. Gen. Refractories Co., 581 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky. 1979). Furthermore, KRS 342.285(2) explicitly provides that "[t]he board shall not substitute its judgment for that of the [ALJ] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."

Comment: I find this decision frustrating on levels. I can't believe that the COA would both make this decision, then also publish it. VanMeter is the only one that got it right. The ALJ should be affirmed based upon the HR Manager's testimony. Plaintiff admitted to her that he lit the object because he thought it was a smoke bomb. Period. We're done. I'll even go so far as to predict that the Supreme Court will affirm ALJ Gott and reverse the Court of Appeals.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
  • Fowler bell pllc | recognized by | best lawyers
  • Super lawyers | top law firm | kentucky
  • Martindale Hubbell | Peer Review Rated | 2017 for ethical standards and legal ability
  • Best lawyers| best law firm | us news | 2018
  • Best lawyers| best law firm | us news | 2017
  • Fortune | 2013 top ranked law firms | AV
  • Primerus | member International society of primerus law firm
  • Best's | recommended insurance attorneys | listed over 50 years
  • Fowler bell pllc | listed in best lawyers linking lawyers and clients worldwide
  • Bar register | preeminent lawyers
  • Best recommended insurance attorneys
Email Us For A Response

Contact Our Law Firm For Assistance

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Fowler Bell PLLC

Location:

Fowler Bell PLLC
300 West Vine Street
Suite 600
Lexington, KY 40507

Phone: 859-554-2877
Fax: 859-255-3735
Map & Directions

Phone:
Review Us