Opinion ID: 1212939
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Extent to which nature of employment may be expected to include some such horseplay.

Text: This element of Larson's approach focuses on the foreseeability of horseplay in any given employment environment and on the particular act of horseplay involved. Considerations which may enter into the analysis of this point include whether the work involves lulls in employment activity or is essentially continuous, [21] and the existence of instrumentalities which are part of the work environment and which are readily usable in horseplay situations. [22] This list is not intended to be exhaustive but rather illustrative of the possibilities. In the present case all of the elements which joined to result in Petitioner's injury  the hand truck, the rubber bands, and the piece of wood  were part and parcel of the work environment. It therefore is not difficult to foresee that horseplay of the type engaged in by Petitioner was to be expected. By adopting the approach suggested by Larson, this Court does not intend the adoption of a test which by mechanical application will in cases involving horseplay dictate a correct result. Indeed this approach is not susceptible of mechanical application but rather is intended as a method of analysis to assist the Industrial Commission in consideration of future cases coming before it involving horseplay. It is this Court's view that when the underlying policy of the compensation act is effectuated in the light of the analysis suggested herein, a rational result can be expected. While we remain committed to the proposition that this Court will examine the evidence in a compensation case only to ascertain whether there is any substantial evidence in support of the findings of the Commission and whether the Commission has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, [23] under the facts of this case we believe as a matter of law that there was not a substantial deviation such that it can be said that the resulting injury did not arise in the course of the employment and hence is not compensible. The record herein reveals no substantial evidence supporting the finding of the Commission that by engaging in horseplay, Petitioner completely abandoned his duties and hence was not injured in the course of his employment. Therefore the Order of the Commission is reversed. Costs to Petitioner and against Bergin. MAUGHAN and STEWART, JJ., concur.