Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities
368 S.W.3d 442
Tenn.2012Background
- Employee injured while working on a pole replacement in a bucket lift; he removed gloves to hammer a staple, violating a strict safety policy.
- Employer had a policy requiring protective gloves cradle-to-cradle and enforced it; gloves were replaced if damaged.
- Employee admitted knowledge of the policy and its safety purpose; employer’s enforcement was robust.
- Trial court awarded benefits; employer appealed asserting willful misconduct or willful failure to use a safety appliance as defenses.
- Court adopted Larson’s four-element framework for the willful defenses and held employee’s removal of gloves was willful failure to follow a safety rule; benefits reversed and case dismissed.
- Costs against employee; remnant discussion on post-accident amendments to the statute noted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal of gloves constitutes willful failure to use a safety appliance | Mitchell—plausible reasons negating willfulness; deletion of gloves to staple does not show willful misconduct. | Employer—clear policy; removal of gloves violates rule; four-element test satisfied with no valid excuse. | Yes; fourth element satisfied; willful failure to use safety appliance; benefits unrecoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hogsett, 486 S.W.2d 730 (Tenn. 1972) (willful misconduct requires intentional, perverse misconduct)
- Coleman v. Coker, 204 Tenn. 310, 321 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1959) (willful misconduct requires intentional violation of orders; not merely mistake)
- Brown v. Birmingham Nurseries, 117 S.W.2d 739 (Tenn. 1938) (willful misconduct involves intentional disregard of safety rules)
- Nance v. State Indus., Inc., 33 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn.Works. Comp.Panel 2000) (four elements; willful violation of safety policy; fourth element: willful/refusal with no plausible excuse)
- Cordell v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co., 121 S.W.2d 970 (Tenn. 1938) (employee with knowledge of safety rules disobeying them forfeits recovery)
- Gart, 125 S.W.2d 140 (Tenn. 1939) (perverseness concept in willful misconduct)
- Spruill v. C.W. Wright Construction Co., 381 S.E.2d 359 (Va.App. 1989) (lineman’s valid excuse when line believed dead)
- Wright v. Gunther Nash Mining Construction Co., 614 S.W.2d 796 (Tenn. 1981) (extreme cases of willful disobedience to known prohibitions)