Court Opinion

ID: 9635285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:45:18.941613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:23.146633
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Senior Judge Kalish:
I respectfully dissent.
The referee concluded that claimants conduct constituted willful misconduct because he could have retreated from the other employee, and by his failure to do so, his defense of “good cause” was negated. Thus, it is apparent that the referee concluded that since there was no justification for claimants conduct, it constituted “fighting” which was a violation of company rules.
“Fighting” is an intentional infliction or intent to inflict bodily harm upon one another by the participants. It is the intention which makes the event a “fight.” If the claimants conduct is justified under the circumstances, the intent is nullified or at least it shows that his conduct was reasonable.
*437Here, the referees conclusion that there was no justification and that he could have retreated is not supported by substantial evidence. The record shows that Heidlemark assaulted claimant without provocation on three different occasions, resulting in three nails from the nail gun being imbedded in claimants chest. This is seriously harmful conduct. Claimant responded with one shot to Heidlemarks leg.
Under the circumstances, claimant could have a well-grounded and reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious bodily harm. The duty to retreat to a place of safety applies to a situation where deadly force is used. And even there it applies where retreat can be made with complete safety. The one shot to Heidlemarks leg can hardly be said to be deadly force. Furthermore, the record shows that even if claimant attempted to retreat, he would have had to pass his assailant, and it would not have been a reasonable escape.
The employer has the burden of showing willful misconduct. The inference drawn by the Board that claimants conduct reached a level of willful misconduct was neither reasonable nor natural, and was therefore an error of law.