Hilton v. Martin

Decision Date11 January 2008
Docket NumberRecord No. 070091.
Citation654 S.E.2d 572
CourtVirginia Supreme Court
PartiesFred HILTON, Administrator of the Estate of Courtney Leighann Hilton Rhoton, Deceased v. Joshua Phillip MARTIN, et al.

Julia L. McAfee (Jeffrey A. Sturgill, Wise; Carl E. McAfee; Sturgill & Kennedy, on brief), for appellant.

William M. Stanley (Bird & Stanley, on brief), for appellee Greta Caudill.

James G. Muncie (Angela Fleming Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, on brief), Richmond, for appellee Highlands Ambulance Service.

No brief filed by appellee Joshua Phillip Martin.

Present: HASSELL, C.J., KEENAN, KOONTZ, KINSER, LEMONS, and AGEE, JJ., and RUSSELL, S.J.

OPINION BY Senior Justice CHARLESS. RUSSELL.

This action to recover damages for personal injury and resulting death arose from an assault on the victim by a fellow employee "in the course of" their mutual employment. The sole question on appeal is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's case on the ground that it involved an "injury arising out of" her employment and therefore that the Virginia Worker's Compensation Act, Code §§ 65.2-100 et seq. (the Act), provided the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff's claims.

Facts and Proceedings

The material facts are undisputed. On June 1, 2005, Courtney Leighann Hilton Rhoton (Courtney), an emergency medical services provider, was seated on the passenger side of the front seat of an ambulance owned by Highlands Ambulance Service, Inc. (Highlands) while it was traveling on the highway. Seated beside her was the driver, Michael V. Coleman. Joshua Philip Martin was riding in the rear of the ambulance. Coleman and Martin were both emergency medical technicians and all three occupants of the ambulance were employees of Highlands. At the time in question, they were returning in the ambulance to Highlands' office after lunch.

The plaintiff alleged that Martin had a reputation as a "kid in an adult's body," that he had a tendency to "harass his female co-workers" and that he "exhibited childish and immature behavior." As the ambulance neared Highlands' office, Martin turned on the power to a manual cardiac defibrillator that was in the rear of the ambulance, adjusted its energy to 150 joules, and picked up the defibrillator paddles. With the paddles in his hands, he turned toward the front of the ambulance and told Courtney, "I'm going to get you." Courtney screamed, "Get those away from me," and pushed Martin back. He turned away from her and appeared to be replacing the paddles in the unit. Suddenly, he again came toward her, striking Courtney with the paddles on the left shoulder and left breast, while simultaneously activating them. Courtney screamed, "[h]e shocked me," and appeared to be having a seizure.

Coleman called his office to have emergency treatment available and drove directly there. Greta Caudill, a licensed paramedic employed by Highlands, transferred Courtney to another ambulance and transported her to a hospital, assessing Courtney's condition as "altered state of consciousness, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest and electrocution." Courtney never regained consciousness and died on June 4, 2005 of "electrocution and cardiac arrest caused by being hit with a charged defibrillator." Burn marks were present at the points where the defibrillator paddles had made contact with her body.

Fred Hilton, Courtney's father, qualified as administrator of her estate and brought this action against Martin, Highlands and Greta Caudill. The complaint included counts for assault and battery against Martin and Highlands, medical malpractice against Greta Caudill and Highlands, and negligent hiring and negligent retention against Highlands. The defendants filed pleas in bar, asserting that the plaintiff's sole remedy was provided by the Act. The parties submitted the case to the trial court on the pleadings, depositions and arguments of counsel. The court, by letter opinion, ruled that the "accident" arose out of and in the course of the employment and that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was as provided by the Act. The court then entered an order sustaining the pleas in bar as to all counts1 and dismissed the complaint. We awarded the Administrator an appeal.

Analysis

A plea in bar presents a distinct issue of fact which, if proven, creates a bar to the plaintiff's right of recovery. The moving party has the burden of proof on that issue. Weichert Co. of Virginia v. First Commercial Bank, 246 Va. 108, 109 n. *, 431 S.E.2d 308, 309 n. * (1993). In this appeal, we are presented solely with a question of law concerning the trial court's application of the law to essentially undisputed facts. Therefore, we apply a de novo standard of review. Janvier v. Arminio, 272 Va. 353, 363, 634 S.E.2d 754, 759 (2006).

An "injury" falls within the scope of the Act only if it results from an "accident" and arises out of and in the course of the injured person's employment. Code § 65.2-101. If the injury meets those tests, the rights provided by the Act are the sole remedies for the injury, to the exclusion of any other rights and remedies "at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service or death." Code § 65.2-307. To the extent that an employee's injury does not meet the statutory tests for coverage under the Act, the employee's common-law remedies are preserved unimpaired. Butler v. Southern States Cooperative, Inc., 270 Va. 459, 465, 620 S.E.2d 768, 772 (2005).

Here, it is undisputed that Courtney's fatal injury arose in the course of her employment. Therefore, the sole question before us on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in finding from the undisputed facts that her injury also was one "arising out of" her employment. In considering the "arising out of" prong, we do not apply the "positional risk" test, whereby simply sustaining an injury at work is sufficient to establish compensability. Rather, we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • O'Donoghue v. United Cont'l Holdings, Inc.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 26 mars 2019
    ...standard of appellate review governs the question whether the injury satisfies the ‘actual risk’ test." (quoting Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 176, 180, 654 S.E.2d 572 (2008) )). To the extent there is any dispute in the evidence in this case, it is only regarding the source of the electrical a......
  • Bernard v. Carlson Companies–Tgif
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 17 juillet 2012
    ...a de novo standard of appellate review governs the question whether the injury satisfies the “actual risk” test. Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 176, 180, 654 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2008) (characterizing the “arising out of” issue as a “question of law” when the parties present undisputed facts). Under......
  • Cleaves-Mcclellan v. Shah
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Virginia
    • 30 juin 2016
    ...1:8. A plea in bar presents a distinct issue that, if proven, creates a bar to the plaintiff's right of recovery. Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 176, 177, 654 S.E.2d 572 (2008). The purpose of a plea in bar is "to narrow the litigation by resolving an issue that will determine whether a plaintif......
  • Rodriguez v. Leesburg Bus. Park, LLC
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 27 février 2014
    ...the circuit court's application of the law to those facts and therefore apply a de novo standard of review. See Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 176, 180, 654 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2008). Answering the question before us “is not a simple, straightforward exercise,” Henderson v. Central Tel. Co., 233 Va......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • 11.7 Assault and Battery
    • United States
    • Employment Law in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 11 Tort Actions
    • Invalid date
    ...intentional torts arise out of a plaintiff's employment where they are proximately caused by work-related issues").[648] 275 Va. 176, 654 S.E.2d 572 (2008).[649] Id. at 181, 654 S.E.2d at 574-75.[650] Id.[651] Id.[652] 270 Va. 459, 465, 620 S.E.2d 768, 772 (2005).[653] Id. at 465-66, 620 S.......
  • 2.4 “Arising Out Of” Defined
    • United States
    • Workers' Compensation Practice in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 2 Coverage of Accidental Injuries
    • Invalid date
    ...of the full Commission found that this injury was not the result of a specific incident, and thus, not compensable.[145] 275 Va. 176, 654 S.E.2d 572 (2008).[146] 281 Va. 114, 704 S.E.2d 359 (2011); see also Askew v. Taco Bell, V.W.C. No. 238-24-86 (July 15, 2009) (Commission ruled that when......
  • 2.6 Assault and Battery
    • United States
    • Virginia Business Torts (Virginia CLE) Chapter 2 Common Law Torts
    • Invalid date
    ...its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence.").[572] 275 Va. 176, 654 S.E.2d 572 (2008).[573] Id. at 181, 654 S.E.2d at 574-75.[574] Id.[575] Id.[576] 270 Va. 459, 465, 620 S.E.2d 768, 772 (2005).[577] Id. at 465-66, 620 ......
  • 4.13 Workers' Compensation
    • United States
    • The Virginia Lawyer: A Deskbook for Practitioners (Virginia CLE) Chapter 4 Employment Law: Employee Rights and Employer Responsibilities1922
    • Invalid date
    ...between her employment and being struck by lightning to have her claim arise out of her employment). In Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 176, 654 S.E.2d 572 (2008), the Virginia Supreme Court considered whether a deadly assault by a paramedic on a coworker with a charged defibrillator arose out of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT