COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

RICHARD W. BRIDGES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0887-98-4 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 18, 1998 

PROGRESSIVE PRINTING 

AND 

FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (James D. Alvey; Alvey & Alvey, on briefs), 

for appellant. Appellant submitting on 

brief. 

 (Robert M. McAdam; David W. Hearn; Wooten & 

Hart, on brief), for appellees. Appellees 

submitting on brief. 

 Richard W. Bridges appeals from a decision of the Workers' 

Compensation Commission holding that he failed to prove that he 

was injured in an accident arising out of his employment. 

Finding no error, we affirm. 

 On January 22, 1997, Bridges was employed by Progressive 

Printing ("employer") as a truck driver. His job duties required 

that he deliver boxes of printing materials and pick up supplies 

at various locations. On that date, Bridges went to H&H Bindery 

to make a pick-up. As he descended the stairs in H&H Bindery's 

building, he fell and injured his back. 

 Bridges testified that, as he ascended the second set of 

stairs, which were wooden, one of the customer's employees, 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

Elaine Watson, informed him that the person Bridges intended to 

visit was not upstairs. As Bridges turned to descend the stairs, 

he fell. He attempted to break his fall by grabbing a banister, 

causing him to fall backwards and hit his back against the corner 

of a block wall in the stairwell. 

 Bridges described the stairs and his fall as follows: 

 As you walk in the door, there is four or 

five concrete steps, a small landing. There 

is the wooden steps that go upstairs to the 

offices. I had started up the wooden steps. 

 I had taken approximately two or three steps 

up when, again I was yelled at, that Mitch 

was not up there. And I turned to come back 

down and that's when I fell. I tried to 

catch myself and, and was not able to and 

fell backwards into the wall. 

 Bridges measured the stairs approximately six to eight weeks 

after the accident. He estimated that the concrete steps 

measured ten inches in depth and seven inches in height and that 

the wooden steps measured ten inches in depth and eight and 

one-half inches in height. At the time of the fall, Bridges was 

not carrying anything and the lighting in the stairwell was 

adequate. 

 In his February 19, 1997 recorded statement to employer's 

insurance adjuster, Bridges admitted that he did not know the 

cause of his fall. Bridges stated, "I . . . turned around to 

come back down and when I did I apparently missed a step I don't 

know what happened I really don't I don't know how I fell but I 

was coming down because I stepped back down." Bridges further 

stated, "[W]hen I stepped back with my left foot apparently I 
- 3 - 

only got a part of the step or landing whatever it was with the 

front part of my foot and that's when I fell." In his recorded 

statement, Bridges denied slipping, tripping, or twisting, but 

admitted that he stumbled. 

 The commission, in affirming the deputy commissioner, found 

that Bridges failed to prove that "some work place factor beyond 

the steps or stairs contributed to his accident." The commission 

further found that the evidence showed that "the stairs were 

neither unusual [n]or defective and that the lighting in the 

stairwell did not contribute to [Bridges'] fall."1

 "Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a mixed 

question of law and fact and is reviewable by the appellate 

court." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 

483, 382 S.E.2d 305, 305 (1989). But, unless we conclude that 

Bridges proved, as a matter of law, that his employment caused 

his injury, the commission's finding is binding and conclusive on 

appeal. See Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 

173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

 "The claimant had the burden of establishing, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, and not merely by conjecture or 

speculation, that [he] suffered an injury by accident which arose 

out of . . . the employment." Central State Hosp. v. Wiggers, 

 

 1The commission also found that Bridges did not prove that 

his fall occurred as a result of a distraction. Bridges 

abandoned this argument on appeal. Therefore, we will not 

address it. 
- 4 - 

230 Va. 157, 159, 335 S.E.2d 257, 258 (1985). "To prove the 

'arising out of' element, [in a case involving injuries sustained 

from falling down stairs at work,] [Bridges] must show that a 

condition of the workplace either caused or contributed to [his] 

fall." Southside Virginia Training Ctr. v. Shell, 20 Va. App. 

199, 202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995) (citing County of 

Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 184, 376 S.E.2d 73, 76 

(1989)). This analysis "excludes an injury which cannot fairly 

be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause and 

which comes from a hazard to which the [claimant] would have been 

equally exposed apart from the employment." R & T Investments, 

Ltd. v. Johns, 228 Va. 249, 253, 321 S.E.2d 287, 289 (1984). 

 Although Bridges was in the course of his employment when 

his injury occurred, his evidence did not show that any defect in 

the stairs or any condition peculiar to his employment caused him 

to fall down the stairs and injure himself. Bridges could not 

explain why he may have missed a step. Moreover, contrary to 

Bridges' assertions on appeal, no evidence showed that the size 

or design of the steps played any role in causing his fall, or 

created an added risk peculiar to his employment. Because no 

evidence showed a causal connection between the conditions of 

Bridges' employment and his fall, we cannot find that he proved, 

as a matter of law, that his injury arose out of his employment. 

 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.