Carnegie v. Pan American Linen, BC-8

• Decision Date: 10 October 1985
• Docket Number: No. BC-8,BC-8
• Citation: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2329,476 So.2d 311
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2329 Andrew CARNEGIE, Appellant, v. PAN AMERICAN LINEN, and Fred S. James & Co. of Florida, Inc., Appellees.

Page 311

476 So.2d 311

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2329

Andrew CARNEGIE, Appellant, v. PAN AMERICAN LINEN, and Fred S. James & Co. of Florida, Inc., Appellees.

No. BC-8.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Oct. 10, 1985.

Stephen L. Rosen, and Scott B. Gorman, of Morris & Rosen, Tampa, for appellant.

Wendell J. Kiser, of Zimmerman, Shuffield, Kiser & Sutcliffe, Orlando, for appellees.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Claimant seeks review of a workers' compensation order by which a claim for benefits was denied upon a determination that claimant's injuries were sustained in a personal altercation. We find that the deputy did not adequately consider the full criteria for the compensability of such injuries, and we therefore reverse the order appealed and remand the cause for further consideration.

Claimant was injured during an at-work altercation which involved a female co-worker with whom claimant had been romantically involved. Although the relationship had apparently ceased and the two had not spoken for approximately one month, upon arriving at work on the day of the altercation claimant was confronted by the co-worker regarding the termination of the relationship. Various witnesses presented conflicting evidence as to the precise circumstances of the altercation. However, it was generally established that a fracas ensued between claimant and the co-worker who armed herself with one of several knives available on the premises. The co-worker's sister, who was also employed there, participated in the altercation to some extent, and a company foreman entered the struggle in an attempt to quell the disturbance. During the course of the altercation claimant sustained a knife wound.

At the conclusion of the hearing the deputy stated that "I am not going to try to sort out the conflict of who was the aggressor because there is just too much conflict...." The deputy then indicated that he would deny the claim, and an order was subsequently entered which found claimant's altercation with the co-worker to be "purely personal." The order further expressed the conclusion that it was thus unnecessary to consider whether claimant or the co-worker had been the aggressor, and the claim was denied.

In circumstances where the work place is merely the fortuitous site of a personal assault which is purely private in origin, and the employment does not otherwise impact the altercation, compensation benefits are properly denied even if the claimant is not the aggressor since the resulting injuries would not arise out of the employment. See generally, Tampa Maid Seafood Products v. Porter, 415 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). It was thus held that such claims should be denied in Ivy H. Smith Co. v. Wingo, 404 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and San Marco Co. Inc. v. Langford, 391 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). However, Tampa Maid further establishes that compensation may be appropriate for injuries which result from a personal altercation if the employment is in some way a contributing factor.

In the present case the deputy concluded that claimant's employment neither exacerbated nor contributed to the injurious altercation, and distinguished Tampa Maid as a situation involving an altercation precipitated by "gossip in the plant." While such gossip was a significant factor in the...