Alabama Workers' Comp Blawg

  • 14
  • Feb
  • 2025

The Horseplay Defense to Alabama Workers’ Compensation Benefits


In Alabama, for an accident to be compensable, it must both arise out of and occur in the course of the employment. Unlike many states that employ a one part “but for” causation test (but for being at work, the accident would not have happened), Alabama’s test is two parts and both parts must be satisfied.

In the Course of

The “in the course of” part of causation test is typically easy to prove because it has to do with time and place. If the accident occurred at work, then it will most likely be considered in the course of the employment.

Arising Out of

The “arising out of” part of the test can be trickier to prove. For this part of the test to be satisfied, the employee must be able to demonstrate a causal nexus between the job and the injury. Another way to put it is that the employee would need to be able to prove that the accident occurred because he/she was placed at increased risk of it occurring because of the job. This is why unexplained falls are not compensable in Alabama. If the employee cannot prove what caused or contributed to the fall, then he/she cannot satisfy his/her burden of proving that it arose out of the employment.

Horseplay

When it comes to an accident and resulting injury being caused by employee misconduct such as horseplay, Alabama courts have generally held that indemnity benefits are not owed to the injured employee.

In Walden v. Glaze & Son, the Court found that an employee who instigated or participated in horseplay from which an injury occurs is not entitled to compensation for the injury. 616 So. 2d 357 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). In Walden, the Court found that the worker was engaged in horseplay at the time of the injury because he was wrestling in a playful manner.

There may be situations where horseplay is determined to be compensable. Examples of such situations include:

1. If the injured employee was innocently injured through the horseplay of another employee(s).

2. If management was a willing participant or encouraged the horseplay.

3. If management knew about the horseplay and allowed or otherwise implicitly consented to such conduct continuing.

Prevention

While it may sound like common sense, it is wise to have safety rules in place against horseplay. Those rules should state that they are in place for the safety of all employees. Safety training for employees and management should include instruction on horseplay prevention and it should be included in signage on the employer’s premises in large letters to demonstrate the importance of the rule. Finally, any such behavior should never be ignored or overlooked. Enforcement of the rule is every bit as important as having the rule in the first place.

Dual Benefit

While horseplay is a complete defense to workers’ compensation benefits, having a safety rule against such conduct that is communicated and uniformly enforced has the dual benefit of giving the employer a statutory safety rule violation defense. Although it is only a defense to the payment of indemnity benefits, it does not hurt to have that to fall back on if the trial judge does not agree that the employee’s conduct rose to the level horseplay.

About the Author:

This article was prepared by Mike Fish, an attorney with Fish Nelson & Holden, LLC, a law firm dedicated to representing self-insured employers, insurance carriers and funds, and third-party administrators in all matters related to workers’ compensation. Fish Nelson & Holden is a member of the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network. If you have any questions about this article or Alabama workers’ compensation in general, please contact Fish by e-mailing him at mfish@fishnelson.com or by calling him directly at 205-332-1448.

Follow and connect with us!

Categories