COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

EAGLE INDUSTRIAL INSTALLATIONS, INC. 

AND 

AMERICAN AND FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY 

v. Record No. 0758-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

WILLIAM TERRY KITE SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (John M. Oakey, Jr.; Jill M. Misage; McGuire, Woods, 

Battle & Boothe, on briefs), for appellants. 

 (Brian J. Cusce, on brief), for appellee. 

 Eagle Industrial Installations, Inc. and its insurer 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as "employer") contend that 

the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in holding that 

William Kite was not barred, pursuant to Code § 65.2-306, from 

receiving an award of compensation because of his willful 

violation of a safety rule. Upon reviewing the record and the 

briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without 

merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's 

decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 "To prevail on the defense of willful violation of a safety 

rule, employer must prove that: (1) the safety rule was 

reasonable; (2) the rule was known to the employee; (3) the rule 

was promulgated for the benefit of the employee; and (4) the 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

employee intentionally undertook the forbidden act." Brockway v. 

Easter, 20 Va. App. 268, 271, 456 S.E.2d 159, 161 (1995). 

 Whether the rule is reasonable and 

applies to the situation from which the 

injury results, and whether the claimant 

knowingly violated it, is a mixed question of 

law and fact to be decided by the commission 

and reviewable by this Court. But the 

question of whether an employee is guilty of 

willful misconduct and whether such 

misconduct is a proximate cause of the 

employee's accident are issues of fact. 

Id. at 271-72, 456 S.E.2d at 161. Upon review of the record, the 

commission found "that the claimant has offered a satisfactory 

explanation for his failure to use the safety line." 

 Employer had a published safety rule mandating that 

employees use a safety line when working under any circumstances 

in which a line would prevent a fall. As a superintendent/safety 

supervisor, claimant was aware of and enforced this rule. 

 On May 11, 1994, claimant and a co-worker were called to 

inspect a leaking pipe. The pipe was situated over a pit 

approximately ten feet deep. The pit was surrounded by a metal 

guardrail. Claimant stepped through an opening in the guardrail 

and onto a horizontal six-inch pipe located near a vertical pipe. 

 He intended to step over to a "blow box" in order to inspect the 

leak. However, his foot slipped as he stepped to the pipe, and 

he fell ten feet, sustaining a compound fracture of the right 

leg. 

 Claimant admitted that if employees had been assigned to 

work on the pipe, they would have been required to use a safety 
 3 

line. A safety line and harness were available to claimant, but 

he was not wearing a safety line when he fell. 

 Claimant testified that he only intended to inspect the 

pipe, not to work on it. He also asserted that if he had worn a 

safety line, it would not have been long enough to allow him to 

reach the "blow box." He could not have used a ladder to inspect 

the pipe, because it was spilling hot water into the pit. 

 The commission believed claimant's testimony that the safety 

line was too short to be used under the circumstances. Evidence 

in the record supports this finding. Employer does not dispute 

that claimant was assigned to inspect the pipe. According to 

claimant he could not have carried out this task if he had hooked 

up to a safety line. 

 The record clearly established that employer had adopted a 

reasonable safety rule, trained its employees in its application, 

and enforced the rule. However, we find upon review that there 

is evidence in the record to support the commission's findings. 

Claimant testified that he could not have inspected the pipe if 

he had hooked up to a safety line which was attached to the 

handrail. The record shows that the use of an alternative 

method, such as a ladder, was not feasible. We hold that, based 

upon the record, credible evidence supports the commission's 

finding that claimant provided a satisfactory explanation for his 

failure to wear a safety line. Because of this finding, 

employer's defense of willful misconduct or violation of a safety 
 4 

rule cannot prevail. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's 

decision. 

 Affirmed.