Opinion ID: 1212939
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Completeness of the deviation.

Text: Petitioner was, at the time he was attacked by his co-employees, engaged in the discharge of his duties. Had he not been injured, he would presumably have completed loading the truck and carried on with his deliveries. The horseplay he engaged in was clearly commingled with the performance of duty and hence did not constitute an abandonment of duty. Larson points out: ... the particular act of horseplay is entitled to be judged according to the same standards of exten[t] and duration of deviation that are accepted in other fi[e]lds, such as resting, seeking personal comfort, or indulging in incidental personal errands. If an employee momentarily walks over to a co-employee to engage in a friendly word or two, this would nowadays be called an insubstantial deviation. If he accompanies this friendly word with a playful jab in the ribs, surely it cannot be said that an entirely new set of principles has come into play. The incident remains a simple human diversion subject to the same tests of extent of departure from the employment as if the playful gesture had been omitted. At the other extreme, there are cases in which the prankster undertakes a practical joke which necessitates the complete abandonment of the employment and the concentration of all his energies for a substantial part of his working time on the horseplay enterprise. When this abandonment is sufficiently complete and extensive, it can only be treated the same as abandonment of the employment for any other personal purpose, such as an extended personal errand or an intentional four-hour nap. [19] (footnotes omitted)