Carvalho v. Decorative Fabrics Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Torts

TortsWorkers' compensationHorseplayworkers' compensationhorseplayassaultcourse of employmentarising out of employment

Facts

The petitioner worked as a flock-boy handling yarn in the respondent's factory. It was customary at the end of a shift for employees to help remove lint and yarn from each other's clothing with an airhose. On February 25, 1974, while a fellow employee was cleaning yarn from petitioner's clothing, the airhose was placed in the vicinity of petitioner's rectum, knocking him to the floor; he later was diagnosed with a perforated rectum and missed work for several months. The commission found horseplay and assault, but made no finding whether petitioner was an innocent victim or a participant, and no finding on causal connection to the employment.

Issue

Whether an employee injured in workplace horseplay may recover workers' compensation benefits, including if the employee participated in the horseplay, and whether the commission erred by denying compensation solely because horseplay was present without determining whether the required nexus to employment existed.

Rule

Injuries resulting from horseplay are not automatically excluded from workers' compensation. An innocent nonparticipating victim may recover if the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, meaning there is a nexus or causal connection between the injury and the employment. A participating claimant also may recover if the horseplay is part and parcel of the work environment or is substantially motivated by influences originating in the employment; where horseplay is not shown to be customary, the question is whether it constituted a substantial deviation from employment, judged by the extent of the departure from the course of employment rather than the seriousness of the injury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a packaging plant in Toledo, Omar Vega was sealing cartons on the late shift when two nearby coworkers began tossing empty tape cores at each other for a few seconds. One core struck Omar in the eye while he remained at his station completing orders. There is no evidence Omar joined in or encouraged the conduct.

Under the governing rule, is Omar's injury most likely compensable?

Explanation. The majority held that horseplay does not automatically bar recovery. An innocent, nonparticipating victim may recover if there is a nexus or causal connection between the injury and the employment—i.e., the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Omar was on duty, at a place he reasonably could be, and performing his work when struck. The doctrine does not require proof of intent to injure, nor does horseplay create a categorical exclusion. (Derived from Carvalho v. Decorative Fabrics Co. (n.d.).)