## Facts

- Brian Clodgo was the manager of a rent-to-own retail store operated by Rentavision, Inc. in Brattleboro, Vermont.
- During work hours, in a lull between customers, Clodgo fired staples from a staple gun at a coworker who was sitting on a couch watching television.
- After repeated stapling, the coworker fired three staples back; as Clodgo ducked, the third staple struck Clodgo in the eye.
- The staple gun was supplied by the employer for store use.
- Clodgo sought workers’ compensation benefits for the injury.
- After a hearing, the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Labor and Industry found the injury compensable and awarded permanent partial disability and vocational rehabilitation benefits, medical expenses, and attorney’s fees and costs.
- Rentavision appealed, asserting the injury resulted from noncompensable horseplay.

## Issues

1. Whether an injury from on-the-job horseplay with a work-supplied tool “arose out of and in the course of employment” under Vermont’s Workers’ Compensation Act.
2. Whether Clodgo’s conduct constituted a substantial deviation from employment duties such that the injury, though causally related to work conditions, was not incurred in the course of employment.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the Commissioner’s award.
- The Court held the accident “arose out of” employment because the workplace conditions and employer-supplied staple gun provided a sufficient causal connection to the injury.
- The Court held the accident did not occur “in the course of” employment because the conduct was a substantial deviation from Clodgo’s work duties.
- The Court concluded that shooting staples at a coworker was obviously dangerous, unrelated to legitimate work activity, and not commingled with job responsibilities, placing it outside the course of employment.
- A dissent would have affirmed on the ground that the Commissioner’s determination was reasonably supported and entitled to deference.

## Legal Principles

- A workers’ compensation claimant must prove both that the injury (1) arose out of employment and (2) occurred in the course of employment.
- “Arising out of” employment requires a causal connection between employment conditions and the injury.
- “In the course of” employment generally requires that the injury occur during work time, at a place the employee may reasonably be, while fulfilling employment duties.
- In horseplay cases, courts assess whether the activity is within the course of employment by evaluating factors including: the extent and seriousness of the deviation; whether the employee wholly abandoned work; whether such conduct was an accepted part of the job; and whether the nature of the work reasonably includes some horseplay.
- Even if an injury is causally connected to work conditions, compensation may be denied when the employee’s horseplay is a substantial deviation from job duties.

## Conclusion

The court denied workers’ compensation because, although the injury was causally connected to work conditions, Clodgo’s dangerous horseplay was a substantial deviation from his employment and therefore not incurred in the course of employment.


Clodgo v. Rentavision, Inc., 166 Vt. 548, 701 A.2d 1044 (Vt. 1997)