Title: McKnight v. CONSOLIDATED CONCRETE COMPANY
Citation: 186 So. 2d 144
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: April 28, 1966

186 So. 2d 144 (1966)
Madeline McKNIGHT
v.
CONSOLIDATED CONCRETE COMPANY, Inc.
6 Div. 121.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 28, 1966.
*145 Corretti &amp; Newsom, Birmingham, for appellant.
London, Yancey, Clark &amp; Allen, Birmingham, for appellee.
LAWSON, Justice.
This is a Workmen's Compensation case.
Certiorari was granted on petition of Madeline McKnight to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County denying compensation for the death of her husband, Neal McKnight, in an action brought by her on behalf of herself and her minor child against Consolidated Concrete Company, Inc., a corporation, under the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Law. § 297, Title 26, Code 1940.
The trial court found, among other things, that Madeline McKnight was the wife of Neal McKnight and that they had one child, Darol Dwang McKnight, a minor; that Neal McKnight was accidentally injured on April 4, 1963, while an employee of Consolidated Concrete Company, Inc., a corporation, sometimes hereinafter referred to as the defendant, and died as a result of the injury; that Neal McKnight was injured on the premises of his employer at a general location where he ordinarily and usually performed his duties and during his regular hours of work; that the defendant had immediate notice of the accidental injury suffered by Neal McKnight and both the defendant and Neal McKnight were subject to the workmen's compensation laws of this state.
As to the general nature of the business of the defendant, the trial court found:
In regard to the place where the deceased was to perform his duties, the trial court found:
As to the circumstances leading up to the accident, the trial court found:
In regard to the condition of the crane shortly before the accident, the trial court found:
Relative to the defendant's rule concerning the use of its machinery by its employees and in regard to McKnight's previous conduct, the trial court found:
As to Hullett's job with the defendant, the trial court found:
In its "Statement of the Facts" the trial court included the following:
The trial court's "Statement of the Facts" concludes as follows:
The trial court's "Statement of the Facts" is followed by its "Final Judgment," which reads:
The appellant apparently construes the last paragraph of the "Statement of the Facts" and the "Final Judgment" as showing that the trial court denied compensation because the accidental injury which resulted in McKnight's death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. We quote from appellant's brief: "Compensation was denied in this case on the premises that the accidental injury and death of the deceased employee, Neal McKnight, did not arise out of and in the course of his employment."
On certiorari to review judgments in compensation cases, we are not concerned with the weight of the evidence as to any fact found by the trial court. If there is any reasonable view of the evidence that will support the trial court's finding of fact, it will not be disturbed. Campbell v. United *148 States Steel Corp., 274 Ala. 326, 148 So. 2d 484; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bruce, 249 Ala. 675, 32 So. 2d 666.
We do not understand counsel for appellant to contend that the trial court's finding of facts is not supported by the evidence. It is the application of the law to the facts of which appellant complains.
In order for an accident to be compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law of this state, the accident must arise out of and in the course of employment. § 253, Title 26, Code 1940; Deaton Truck Line, Inc. v. Acker, 261 Ala. 468, 74 So. 2d 717. See Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bruce, supra, for a discussion of those terms.
In appellant's brief it is conceded "that at the time of the accidental injury of Neal McKnight, he was not performing an act that was in direct furtherance of his employer's interest." Appellant says that at the time of his injury Neal McKnight was engaged in a so-called act of "horseplay" but contends that, nevertheless, his accidental injury and death is compensable.
In early compensation law, aggressor and victim alike were denied compensation in horseplay cases. But it seems to be the rule now in practically all jurisdictions that a non-participating victim of horseplay may recover compensation. 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 23.10. But as to the claim where the injury resulted from the employee's own horseplay, the courts are not in accord and the decisions cannot be reconciled. See 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, §§ 23.10-23.65.
Our research indicates that we have only one so-called horseplay case. In Stockham Pipe Fittings Co. v. Williams, 245 Ala. 570, 18 So. 2d 93, the claimant was injured when hit by a piece of soap thrown by a fellow employee in course of horseplay started by claimant. The trial court awarded compensation. We reversed, saying in part:
It appears that the principal reason for our holding in the Williams Case, supra, was that Williams was the instigator of or a participant in the horseplay which resulted in his death. In other words, we applied the so-called "aggressor defense" rule, without using that term. We agree with Larson that the term "aggressor defense" is unsatisfactory, in that horseplay does not necessarily take the form of sportive assault in that often it is purely a solo performance, and sometimes even if a coemployee is involved, the conduct is "so kittenish and trivial as to deserve a much less somber designation than `aggression,' which is a term borrowed from the lexicon of malicious assault." 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 23.30. In the section of his work just cited Larson suggests the use of the term "instigator" or "participant" in preference to "aggressor." As indicated, those were the terms we used in Williams, supra. But the matter of semantics aside, the rule is the same in those jurisdictions where the "aggressor defense" is applied, that is, an employee who instigates or participates in horseplay is not entitled to compensation for an injury growing out of the horseplay.
But in Williams, supra, without so denominating it, we took cognizance of what is sometimes referred to as the "New York rule," which seems to be that even an instigator or participant is entitled to compensation if the horseplay was a regular incident of the employment, of which the employer had actual or constructive notice, as distinguished from an isolated act. 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, §§ 23.20, 23.40 and 23.42.
The evidence shows beyond peradventure and the trial court found, in effect, that Neal McKnight was a participant in the horseplay which caused his injury and death. Hence, if we adhere strictly to the "aggressor defense" rule the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.
In our opinion, the same result must be reached under the so-called "New York rule." The trial court did find that on previous occasions "McKnight had ridden upon this bucket, called by some of the witnesses a clam bucket. This riding had been done only for a short distance and while the bucket was near the ground, and, upon the bucket's being stopped, he had gotten off." But the trial court did not find and the evidence would not support a finding that McKnight had ever previously ridden on the bucket in the manner he was doing at the time of his injury. Such conduct certainly had not become a regular incident of the employment of which the defendant had actual or constructive notice. The trial court did not find and the evidence would not support a finding that the defendant employer had actual knowledge of Neal McKnight's previous actions in riding the bucket. The evidence would not support a finding, and we do not understand that the trial court found, that Hullett, the operator of the crane, was a supervisory employee of the kind which would impute his knowledge of Neal McKnight's previous conduct to the employer. Nor can it be said that the act of horseplay which resulted in Neal McKnight's injury and death was so characteristic a feature of his employment that even the first time it happened it would be considered a part of the *150 employment. See 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Laws, § 23.42.
All other questions aside, we feel that Neal McKnight deliberately and substantially stepped outside his employment in getting upon the bucket and remaining thereon to the point where he was injured. This conduct was, indeed, a substantial deviation from his employment. See 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 23.64.
We have read with care the cases cited by counsel for appellant from other jurisdictions and realize if we were to follow some of them we would come to a different conclusion. But we are unwilling to follow those cases, as they are not in accord with our holdings in Stockham Pipe Fittings Co. v. Williams, supra.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.