Title: Shaw v. Dutton Berry Farm

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

SHAW_V_DUTTON_BERRY_FARM.92-267; 160 Vt. 594; 632 A.2d 18


 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 No. 92-267


 Bradley Shaw                                 Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Commissioner,
                                              Labor & Industry

 Dutton Berry Farm                            February Term, 1993
 and Hartford Insurance Company


 Dana J. Cole-Levesque, Commissioner

 Emily J. Joselson and Kevin E. Brown of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury,
    for plaintiff-appellant

 John Davis Buckley and Fletcher B. Joslin of Theriault & Joslin, P.C.,
    Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      MORSE, J.  In this Workers' Compensation appeal, we review the question
 of whether an employee's injury caused by the unprovoked stabbing by another
 employee in the "bunkhouse" after work is compensable as "arising out of"
 employment.  We decide that it is and reverse the Commissioner of Labor and
 Industry's determination to the contrary.
      Bradley Shaw, a migrant farm laborer from Jamaica, worked at Dutton
 Berry Farm in Newfane, Vermont, during the summer of 1990.  On July 16,
 after work, he was stabbed by a fellow worker, Dennis Smith.  The injury
 occurred at a workers' "bunkhouse" residence, where plaintiff and eight
 other workers lived.  Plaintiff shared a bedroom with Smith and another
 worker.  The stabbing followed harsh words exchanged between plaintiff and
 Smith over a pair of dirty socks left on Smith's bed.  Prior to the
 altercation, plaintiff and Smith had gotten along well and there were no
 previous incidents of hostility.
      The Commissioner concluded that plaintiff received "a personal injury
 by accident . . . in the course of his employment," but denied workers'
 compensation because in her view the injury was not "arising out of" his
 employment.  21 V.S.A. { 618.(FN1) Thus, the sole issue on appeal revolves
 around the meaning of "arising out of" Shaw's employment under the facts of
 this case.(FN2)
      We begin by repeating the observation of Lord Wrenbury in 1916, quoted
 by Chief Justice Hulburd in Kenney v. Rockingham School District, 123 Vt.
         344, 345,