Simms v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.
704 S.E.2d 359
| Va. | 2011Background
- Simms filed a workers’ compensation claim for a shoulder injury incurred during a shift at a Manassas Ruby Tuesdays while ice was being thrown by coworkers.
- Simms knew the throwers and regarded them as friends; injury occurred when he turned, felt pain, and his shoulder dislocated while trying to block ice.
- Deputy Commissioner found Simms to be the innocent victim of horseplay and compensable, but limited surgery/disability to non-work-related causes.
- Commission reversed, concluding Hilton’s actual risk analysis changed the scope to exclude horseplay injuries unless a causal link to employment existed; thus no coverage.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s ruling; Simms appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court on the scope of the horseplay doctrine and the actual risk test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hilton controls whether the injury arose out of employment | Simms contends Hilton governs. | Hilton applies only to assault, not innocent horseplay. | Hilton not controlling; actual risk test for horseplay governs. |
| Whether non-participating victims of horseplay arise out of employment | Horseplay injuries are an actual workplace risk. | No causal link to employment for horseplay injuries; not arising out. | Yes, injuries from non-participating horseplay may arise out of employment. |
| Whether the injury in this case is within the scope of the Act under the actual risk test | Workplace creates a situation where horseplay injury is a natural incident. | Injury must be caused by a risk connected to employment; otherwise not within Act. | Injury arises out of employment under the actual risk test. |
| Disposition of the case given the interpretive shift | Court should apply Hilton’s framework to horseplay. | Court should remand for a proper application of the actual risk test to horseplay. | Reversed and remanded to apply the law as stated (horseplay, not Hilton assault framework). |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 176, 654 S.E.2d 572 (2008) (actual risk test; assault case framework questioned for horseplay)
- Dublin Garment Co. v. Jones, 2 Va.App. 165, 342 S.E.2d 638 (1986) (horseplay doctrine for innocent nonparticipating victims)
- Park Oil Co. v. Parham, 1 Va.App. 166, 336 S.E.2d 531 (1985) (two lines of horseplay vs. assault cases; practical distinction)
- Hazelwood (Richmond Newspapers v. Hazelwood), 249 Va. 369, 457 S.E.2d 56 (1995) (assault framework for contact and intent in torts relevant to employment)
- Braxton (City of Richmond v. Braxton), 230 Va. 161, 335 S.E.2d 259 (1985) (earlier scope guidance in employment-related injuries)