Spruill v. C.W. Wright Const. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 1078-88-2,1078-88-2 |
| Parties | Thomas E. SPRUILL v. C.W. WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. and Insurance Company of North America. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Robert E. Evans, Lynchburg, (Patrick M. Regan, Koonz, McKenney & Johnson, P.C., Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellant.
Harris D. Butler, III (William B. Pierce, Jr., Williams, Butler & Pierce, Richmond, on brief), for appellee.
Present: BARROW, BENTON and KEENAN, JJ.
In this appeal we are asked to determine whether the Industrial Commission erred in finding that Thomas E. Spruill's claim for worker's compensation benefits was barred by his own willful misconduct in intentionally disregarding a safety rule promulgated by his employer. Because we conclude that the record does not contain credible evidence that Spruill intentionally disregarded the rule, we reverse.
Thomas Spruill was employed as a lineman by C.W. Wright Construction Company, Inc. and had obtained the level of class one lineman, the highest level of a class of three. On the day the incident occurred, C.W. Wright was under contract to convert and reconduct electrical lines in Alexandria, Virginia. The project involved pulling lower voltage 4 kilowatt lines and replacing them with higher voltage 19.9 kilowatt lines.
Spruill was installing a grounding wire to create a "dead span" on a segment of line spanning the road between two poles when he came in contact with an energized 4 kilowatt line. Spruill was working from a bucket above the ground and was not wearing rubber gloves when he came in contact with the wire. The contact resulted in severe electrical burns to Spruill's hands, arms and lower abdomen, requiring, among other treatment, bilateral amputation at the shoulder of the left arm and just below the elbow of the right arm.
C.W. Wright had issued a safety manual to each of its employees prescribing the use of safety equipment when in the proximity of energized lines:
Employees shall not touch or work on any exposed energized lines or apparatus except when wearing approved rubber gloves.
* * * * * *
Rubber gloves and sleeves shall be put on before entering the working area within which energized lines or apparatus may be reached and shall not be removed until the employee is completely out of reach of this area.
This rule was informally known as the "ground to ground" rule. According to the testimony of James Grimes, the general foreman, "[t]hat means that before you leave the ground, the rubber gloves and sleeves have got to be on until you go and perform what duties you're going to perform and come back down to the ground." Grimes recognized, however, that when a lineman was working on a de-energized wire between grounding wires, the lineman could, by accepted practice, work in his bare hands. The lead foreman, Lawrence Parrish, also recognized that this was an accepted practice. Parrish stated that where it is unclear that the line is energized the lineman could "[w]alk down and check the meter to see if there's a transformer on." Alternatively, the lineman could "buzz test" the line. This procedure involves putting a pair of pliers to the line which, if energized, will create a blue and yellow or blue and white flame arc. However, Parrish testified that due to low voltage, it is harder to "buzz test" a 4 kilowatt line.
Harry John Nef, another foreman, testified that the safety regulations were strictly enforced by a disciplinary process commencing with reprimand, followed by suspension and termination. Safety supervisors conducted periodic safety inspections of job sites and issued contemporaneous reports noting any unsafe practices and violations. Monthly safety meetings were also conducted with the crew, and new equipment was issued to the workers at this time.
Jerry Howard, the foreman who was supervising Spruill on the day of the incident, testified that he instructed Spruill to install a set of floats on the wire between the poles and to "cut" the floats, which would then deenergize the span of line between the two poles, allowing Spruill to safely ground the 4 kilowatt line. Howard also testified that he had told Spruill several times that the line he was to work on was hot. Spruill testified, however, that he believed that "there were floats cut on farther down the line" and, therefore, that the 4 kilowatt line he was to work on had already been deenergized. Spruill gave two additional reasons why he believed the line was not energized. First, Spruill read the blueprints of the project and interpreted those blueprints as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Fayetteville Pub. Utilities
...the reasonable rule that required him to wear rubber gloves for his own safety”). More recently, in Spruill v. C.W. Wright Construction Co., 8 Va.App. 330, 381 S.E.2d 359, 360–61 (1989), a Virginia court, while recognizing the misconduct defense, ruled that a lineman had a valid excuse for ......
-
Layne v. Crist Elec. Contractor, Inc.
...for the benefit of the employee; and (4) the employee intentionally undertook the forbidden act. Spruill v. C.W. Wright Construction Co., 8 Va.App. 330, 334, 381 S.E.2d 359, 360–61 (1989).Owens Brockway & Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Easter, 20 Va.App. 268, 271, 456 S.E.2d 159, 161 (1995) ;......
-
Pitt v. Shackleford's Rest.
...for [the employee's] benefit, and (4) that [the employee] intentionally undertook the forbidden act." Spruill v. C.W. Wright Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 330, 334, 381 S.E.2d 359, 360-61 (1989). The General Assembly included the word "willful" in the statute to promote the beneficent purposes of......
-
Virginia Linen Service & Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Wise, Record No. 2616-04-2 (VA 6/7/2005)
...not establish that the employee, with the rule in mind, purposefully determined to break the rule. Spruill v. C.W. Wright Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 330, 334, 381 S.E.2d 359, 361 (1989). It is sufficient to show that, knowing the safety rule, the employee intentionally performed the forbidden ......