Court Opinion

ID: 9525941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:09:48.724314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:38.203067
License: Public Domain

Stephan, J.,
dissenting.
While I recognize that the scope of our review of factual determinations by the Workers’ Compensation Court is exceedingly narrow, it does not require us to ignore undisputed evidence or *725abandon common sense. I respectfully dissent because, in my view, the trial judge’s analysis of the willful negligence issue was based upon three findings of fact which are clearly wrong.
The first finding involves the question of whether Guico understood and appreciated the danger involved in disobeying the employer’s safety rule which is at issue in this case. In concluding that he did not, the trial judge noted that Guico “had never cut himself in the past and testified that he did not expect to cut himself at the time of his accident and injury.” This presumably refers to the following testimony by Guico during his direct examination: “Q. Mr. Guico, did you want to cut yourself? A. No. Q. Did you think you were going to cut yourself? A. I never imagined that I would.” While this testimony would lead to a reasonable inference that Guico did not commit “a deliberate act” constituting willful negligence under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-151(7)(a) (Supp. 1999), it does not rule out the claim made here that he was willfully negligent because of conduct evidencing a “reckless indifference to safety” under § 48-151(7)(b). The record contains substantial and undisputed evidence that Guico fully understood and appreciated the risk involved in using a knife to split ribs without wearing the required safety equipment. Asked if he knew why the steel-mesh safety equipment was required when working as a rib splitter, Guico responded: “So that one would not get cut.” He was then asked, “Was it because that job required you to use the knife?” and he responded, “Yes.” Guico also admitted that Marquez had informed him “[a] few times” that he could be cut very badly if he did not use the steel-mesh safety equipment. Guico’s understanding and appreciation of the danger posed by failure to utilize the safety equipment is demonstrated in the following testimony on cross-examination:
Q. You knew that you needed to wear safety equipment if you were going to do a job with a knife, didn’t you?
A: Correct.
Q. You knew that if you didn’t have that safety equipment you could get cut very badly, didn’t you?
A. That’s true.
Q. And you knew that the mesh gloves and the mesh aprons were there to help, so you would not get cut.
A. Correct.
*726In my view, these admissions by Guico conclusively establish his understanding and appreciation of the danger involved in using a knife to split ribs without wearing the required steel-mesh safety equipment, and therefore the trial court’s finding to the contrary was clearly wrong.
The trial judge next noted his “considerable concern” about Excel’s enforcement of the rule, finding that despite testimony that its violation was considered “major,” there was also “starkly inconsistent and contradictory” evidence indicating that Guico had violated the same rule the day prior to the accident and “virtually nothing” had happened to him. The judge thus found that the only difference between the two violations was that one resulted in injury. In my view, the record does not support this inference. As noted by the majority, Guico was informed of the safety rules at the commencement of his employment and was reminded of the rules throughout his employment. It is undisputed that when Marquez discovered Guico rib splitting without using the required safety equipment on the day prior to the injury, he immediately removed Guico from the job and verbally warned him about the need to use appropriate safety equipment when rib splitting. The fact that Guico was not “written up” or suspended for this incident does not mean that Excel did not enforce its rule. As Professor Larson notes, “enforcement is not necessarily synonymous with application of outright penalties.” 2 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 35.03 at 35-8 to 35-9 (2000). In Iron Company v. Jenkins, 207 Va. 399, 405, 150 S.E.2d 120, 125 (1966), the court rejected a contention that verbal warnings and reprimands regarding the necessity of compliance with a safety rule did not constitute bona fide enforcement, stating:
[I]t is not essential that the employer suspend an employee from his job or reduce his wages for violating a work rule in order for there to be “strict enforcement” of the rule. These sanctions may constitute strict enforcement, but the term is not limited to such penalties. Other actions and conduct of the employer, such as existed in the case at bar, may apply with equal force.
I acknowledge authority holding that a worker’s violation of an employer’s safety rule cannot be asserted as a defense to a *727workers’ compensation claim where there is evidence that the employer failed to take steps to enforce the rule despite knowledge of its prior violation. See, e.g., Lori’s Fam. Din. v. Indus. Claim Appeals, 907 P.2d 715 (Colo. App. 1995) (affirming rejection of safety rule defense where record reflected employer was aware of prohibited horseplay in workplace but never followed policies for disciplining employees for such behavior). However, disregard of safety rule violations by the same or other employees is relevant only “ ‘under circumstances charging the employer with knowledge and acquiescence.’ ” Iron Company v. Jenkins, 207 Va. at 404, 150 S.E. 2d at 124 (followed in VEPCO v. Kremposky, 227 Va. 265, 315 S.E.2d 231 (1984)). See, also, 2 Larson & Larson, supra, § 35.03. In the present case, there is no evidence that Excel knowingly permitted Guico or any other employee to work with a knife without wearing the required steel-mesh safety equipment, and thus, there is no basis for an inference that Excel acquiesced in the violation of its rule. Also, whether or not Guico was required to obtain permission from a supervisor before switching jobs is immaterial to the issue of enforcement because, as noted above, it is undisputed that at the time of Guico’s injury, he was well aware of Excel’s requirement that he wear steel-mesh safety equipment whenever he performed the rib-splitter job. For these reasons, I conclude that the finding by the trial judge that Excel’s safety rule “was not kept alive by bona fide enforcement” was clearly wrong.
The third factual basis for the trial judge’s determination that willful negligence was not shown was a finding that Guico had “a valid excuse for the violation given the production demands of [Excel].” The trial judge reasoned that because rib splitting was performed from a fixed work station on beef carcasses which were moving on a conveyor system on a “continual and constant basis,” “there was simply not enough time available to [Guico] to comply with the safety rule of wearing the gloves.” This finding rests upon the false premise that Guico was required by Excel to perform the rib-splitter job at the time he was injured. However, the evidence is undisputed that Guico alone made the decision to switch jobs without first donning the required safety equipment. The record reflects no “production demands” which required him to do so. To the contrary, the undisputed evidence is that Guico *728was verbally reprimanded by Marquez for precisely the same unsafe conduct on the previous day. His testimony that he did not have time to put on steel-mesh gloves “[b]ecause I was on the saw, and we switched, and it was quick” cannot afford an excuse for his conduct because Guico was not required by Excel to switch jobs and, in fact, was specifically forbidden from doing so without using the required safety apparel. It is important to note that the conduct at issue here is not simply Guico’s failure to wear the steel-mesh safety equipment while rib splitting, but, rather, his failure to do so after deciding to switch jobs under circumstances in which, by his own admission, he did not have time to take the required precautions to protect himself from injury. It is undisputed that Guico alone selected the moment at which he switched jobs and that he did so knowing that at that particular moment, he had insufficient time to put on the safety gear which he knew he was required to wear in order to avoid being accidentally cut. Far from excusing Guico’s conduct, these facts underscore its recklessness.
Unlike the circumstances in Moise v. Fruit Dispatch Co., 135 Neb. 684, 283 N.W. 495 (1939), Guico’s conduct was not automatic or reflexive, but, rather, was the product of the volition and mental effort which characterizes willful negligence as defined by § 48-151(7)(b). The only reasonable inference I can draw from the evidence is that Guico made a conscious and deliberate decision to leave his assigned work station in order to do other work which he preferred without first donning the safety equipment required by Excel’s safety rule to prevent precisely the injury which Guico sustained, notwithstanding his verbal reprimand for the same unsafe conduct on the previous day. Based upon this inference, I conclude that the trial judge was clearly wrong in determining that Guico’s actions at the time of his injury did not evidence willful negligence consisting of reckless indifference to safety. I conclude that the evidence establishes willful negligence as a matter of law and that Guico’s injury was therefore not compensable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-101 (Reissue 1998). Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court and remand the cause with directions to dismiss.
Connolly, J., joins in this dissent.