Woods v. Harry B. Woods Plumbing Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 06 April 1998 |
Citation | 967 S.W.2d 768 |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Parties | Rebecca Fay WOODS, Harry B. Woods, Jr., and Shirley Ann Woods, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. HARRY B. WOODS PLUMBING COMPANY, INC., Harpeth Construction Co., Inc., and Travelers Insurance Company, Defendants/Appellees. |
Othal Smith, Jr., Nashville, for Appellants.
William G. McCaskill, Jr., Taylor, Philbin, Pigue, Marchetti & Bennett, Nashville, for Appellees, Harpeth Construction Co., Inc. and Travelers Insurance Company.
We granted this workers' compensation appeal to address two issues: (1) whether the decedent's death arose out of and in the course of employment; and (2) whether the decedent was the initial aggressor; and if so, whether the aggressor doctrine precluded recovery. We find that the decedent's death arose out of and in the course of employment. As to the second issue, we hold the common law aggressor defense as it relates to workers' compensation claims under the Act is abolished in Tennessee and does not bar the decedent's recovery.
The decedent, his nephew and his son arrived at a house to perform a plumbing job. Charles Langley, Jr., was at the house performing floor renovations to the entryway when the decedent arrived. Langley had placed a sign on the front door indicating that the entryway should not be used. Langley further placed tape across the doorway between the kitchen and the entryway.
The decedent, his nephew and his son entered the house from the rear. They ducked under the tape that Langley used to cordon off the entryway and proceeded to walk across the entryway floor to gain access to the basement stairs. Langley then approached the decedent's son with a knife and threatened to kill him. The decedent and Langley had a heated exchange concerning Langley's threat to kill the decedent's son. The project supervisor intervened and was able to diffuse the situation temporarily.
The decedent, his nephew and his son left the house and walked toward their vehicles. The decedent spoke briefly with his son and then began walking toward Langley's van. The decedent apparently charged Langley and was intercepted by the project supervisor who again attempted to intervene. Langley, however, drew an automatic pistol and shot the decedent five times. The decedent died as a result of the gunshot wounds.
The decedent's family filed for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court found that the decedent's death arose out of and in the course of his employment. The trial court, however, held that the decedent was not entitled to recover because he became the aggressor after the initial confrontation had concluded. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by a workers' compensation panel.
The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act ("Act"), Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-101 et seq., provides the exclusive remedies for workers sustaining workrelated injuries. Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-108. An employee's right to recover under the Act requires a finding that the injury arose "out of and in the course of employment." Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-102(5). The phrases "arising out of" and "in the course of" employment comprise two separate requirements. The phrase "in the course of" refers to the time, place and circumstances under which the injury occurred. McAdams v. Canale, 200 Tenn. 655, 294 S.W.2d 696, 699 (1956). The phrase "arising out of" refers to an injury's origin. Id.
The "course of employment" requirement is satisfied when an injury occurs within the time and place limitations of the employment relationship and during an activity that had some connection with the employee's job-related functions. The decedent had arrived at a job site where a dwelling was being renovated. He entered the dwelling at which he was to perform a plumbing job. Langley was a worker present in the dwelling when the decedent arrived. The decedent, his son and his nephew walked across a floor that Langley was renovating to gain access to the basement. Langley became irate and threatened to kill the decedent's son with a carpentry knife. The confrontation ensued until the decedent was shot at the job site outside of the dwelling. Accordingly, the decedent's death occurred during the course of the decedent's employment.
We shall now focus on whether the decedent's death arose out of his employment. An accident arises out of employment when there is a causal relationship between the employment and the injury. Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn.1991).
We believe that issues of whether assaults upon employees arise out of the scope of employment can best be divided into three general classifications: (1) assaults with an "inherent connection" to employment such as disputes over performance, pay or termination; (2) assaults stemming from "inherently private" disputes imported into the employment setting from the claimant's domestic or private life and not exacerbated by the employment; and (3) assaults resulting from a "neutral force" such as random assaults on employees by individuals outside the employment relationship.
Assaults with an "inherent connection" to employment are compensable. See W.S. Dickey Mfg. Co. v. Moore, 208 Tenn. 576, 347 S.W.2d 493 (1961) ( ); Whaley v. Patent Button Co., 184 Tenn. 700, 202 S.W.2d 649 (1947) ( ). Assaults stemming from "inherently private" disputes imported into the employment setting from the claimant's domestic or private life and not exacerbated by the employment are not compensable. See Brimhall v. Home Insurance Co., 694 S.W.2d 931 (Tenn.1985) ( ); White v. Whiteway Pharmacy, Inc., 210 Tenn. 449, 360 S.W.2d 12 (1962) ( ). Assaults resulting from a "neutral force" such as random assaults may or may not be compensable depending on the facts and circumstances of the employment. See Beck v. State, 779 S.W.2d 367 (Tenn.1989) ( ).
The altercation between the decedent and Langley originated in an argument concerning work that Langley was performing at the decedent's job site. Moreover, the entire focus of the dispute was apparently related to the employment setting. We, therefore, find that the decedent's death had an "inherent connection" to the employment setting and arose out of employment as contemplated by the Act.
The next issue with which we are confronted is: (1) whether the decedent was an initial aggressor; and, if so, (2) whether the decedent's death was rendered non-compensable by an initial aggressor defense. Both the trial court and the workers' compensation panel concluded the decedent's death was non-compensable because "[t]he decedent was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Carruthers
... ... A co-worker, whom Delois Anderson had driven home ... trial court appointed William Massey and Harry Sayle to represent Carruthers. During this ... See, e.g., In re Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 603, 609 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ... ...
-
Doe v. Matthew 25, Inc.
... ... 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co. , 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936) ) ... Woods v. Harry B. Woods Plumbing Co. , 967 S.W.2d 768, 771 ... ...
-
Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., No. E2008-01596-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 10/14/2009)
... ... Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co". 205 S. W. 3d 365 (Tenn.2006) stating: ... \xC2" ... Woods v. Harry B. Woods Plumbing Co., 967 S. W.2d 768, 772 ... ...
-
PADILLA v. TWIN City FIRE Ins. Co.
... ... Glisson v. Mohon Int'l, Inc./Campbell Ray, 185 S.W.3d 348, 353 (Tenn.2006); Saylor v ... Woods v. Harry B. Woods Plumbing Co., 967 S.W.2d 768, 771 ... ...