Horseplay or Not Horseplay: That is the Question

Written by: James G. Smith, Esq.

Recently, I came across an interesting hypothetical scenario in which “horseplay” could have been asserted as a defense. The hypothetical is as follows: An employee arrives at work in the morning and parks his vehicle. As he gets out of the vehicle, a coworker pulls up in a golf cart and offers to give the employee a ride to the main office so that the employee can clock in and begin his day. However, instead of going directly to the main office, the coworker, who is driving the golf cart, begins to goof around and the employee ultimately gets thrown from the golf cart and suffers injuries. Is this a compensable injury, or would the “horseplay” defense be applicable?

In Georgia, “horseplay” defenses are assessed on a case-by-case basis and are largely contingent on the facts of the case. In general, on one hand, the law states that, “The injury of an innocent employee in the course of his employment by the horseplay of a fellow employee, in which the injured employee did not participate, arises out of the employment and nothing more appearing, is compensable.” American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Benford, 77 Ga. App. 93 (1948).

Conversely, however, when an employee steps aside from his employment and engages in horseplay or practical joking, and accidental injury results, the injury can be denied (even if the injured worker happened to be a “victim” of the horseplay or practical joke, such as a chair being pulled out from under injured worker). See Kight v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 141 Ga. App. 409 (1977). In cases such as Kight, the pivotal inquiry is whether the horseplay/practical joking was an ongoing and somewhat regular event (as opposed to an isolated incident).

In turning back to the hypothetical situation above, was the injured worker an innocent victim of his coworker’s horseplay, or was he an active participant in a known pattern of horseplay? The critical questions to be answered include: Did the injured worker ever ride in the golf cart with the coworker prior to the day of the work accident, and did the coworker routinely engage in such horseplay (such that the injured worker knew what was likely to happen if he got in the golf cart)? Was the injured worker objecting to the coworker’s deviation and horseplay as it was occurring? Was the injured worker encouraging the horseplay? Whose idea was it to goof around in the golf cart? Did the manager/supervisor acquiesce to or implicitly approve of this kind of behavior during normal work hours (such that horseplay is an accepted part of the employment)?

As is often the case, the facts of a claim will fall somewhere in the gray area between the “bright line” rules of law, and there won’t always be an easy answer to whether a claim is compensable. In those situations, it is imperative to conduct a thorough investigation of the facts before making a decision to accept or deny the claim, and the attorneys at Hall Booth Smith, PC are prepared to provide any assistance necessary in conducting such an investigation.