Melvin L. Layne v. Crist Electrical Contractor, Inc. and Assurance Services Corporation
64 Va. App. 342
| Va. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Layne, an electrician's helper, was injured when a bridge crane struck his scissor lift while he was installing conduit inside a Delta Star warehouse. Employer acknowledged the accident arose in the course of employment but asserted Layne violated a "lockout-tagout" safety procedure.
- Supervisors testified they had verbally instructed Layne about the lockout-tagout procedure (how to use the crane disconnect box and padlock and to obtain the crane operator's permission) and had shown him the disconnects. Layne had previously locked out the crane earlier the same morning.
- Layne unlocked the crane mid-morning and later returned in a scissor lift without locking the crane out or notifying/obtaining permission from the crane operator. The crane was operable and struck the lift around 11:30 a.m., causing severe injuries.
- The deputy commissioner found Layne violated the lockout-tagout rule and denied benefits under Va. Code § 65.2-306(A)(5). The full commission (after a remand for a properly constituted panel) affirmed by majority (one dissent), concluding Layne's conduct was willful, not merely negligent.
- On appeal, Layne argued (1) no applicable safety rule covered his activity, (2) employer applied the wrong standard for "willful breach" (requiring specific intent), and (3) his conduct was, at most, negligent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence/applicability of a safety rule | Layne: employer had no written rule given to him; written procedure relates to unemployment misconduct, so no applicable workplace safety rule applied to his work | Employer: verbal lockout-tagout instructions communicated and applied to work near crane; earlier compliance shows awareness and applicability | Court: Rule may be oral; credible evidence showed Layne knew the lockout-tagout rule and it applied to his work — defense satisfied |
| What "willful breach" requires (mental state) | Layne: must prove specific intent to violate the rule (i.e., he intended to disobey) | Employer: need only prove the employee intentionally performed the act that constituted the violation (did the forbidden act deliberately, not accidentally) | Court: Longstanding Virginia precedent requires proof that employee intentionally performed the forbidden act; specific intent to disobey is not required |
| Willfulness vs. negligence | Layne: his conduct was negligent or accidental, not willful | Employer: facts (prior compliance, then later work without lockout or notice) support inference of deliberate failure to follow rule | Court: Commission reasonably inferred willfulness from the evidence; not compelled to find mere negligence |
| Burden of proof for § 65.2-306 defense | Layne: employer bears burden to prove all elements | Employer: accepts this but contends it met its burden | Held: Employer had burden and presented credible evidence satisfying elements; commission's factual findings binding on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Peanut City Iron & Metal Co. v. Jenkins, 207 Va. 399, 150 S.E.2d 120 (oral rule can be a workplace safety rule)
- Mills v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 197 Va. 547, 90 S.E.2d 124 (willful misconduct: employee need not have formed purpose to break rule; intentional doing of forbidden act suffices)
- Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Thaxton, 161 Va. 863, 172 S.E. 261 ("wilful" means "with deliberate intent"; knowing rule yet intentionally doing forbidden act is willful)
- Spruill v. C.W. Wright Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 330, 381 S.E.2d 359 (elements of willful breach defense)
- Phipps v. Rann Indus., Inc., 16 Va. App. 394, 429 S.E.2d 886 (verbal instructions can establish existence/limits of a safety rule)
- Buzzo v. Woolridge Trucking, Inc., 17 Va. App. 327, 437 S.E.2d 205 (distinguishes cases where negligence, not willfulness, was proven)