Supreme Court of Delaware

In order to determine whether an employee's conduct constituted horseplay of such a character that it could be considered conduct outside the course and scope of employment for purposes of the workers' compensation exclusive remedy bar, a trial judge must look at the co-employees' conduct and consider the following factors: 1) the extent and seriousness of the deviation; 2) the completeness of the deviation (i.e., whether it was co-mingled with the performance of duty or involved an abandonment of duty); 3) the extent to which the practice of horseplay had become an accepted part of the employment; and 4) the extent to which the nature of the employment may be expected to include some horseplay.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/09/2007
• Published 07/09/2007

Judges

• RIDGELY, Justice., Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

Court

• Supreme Court of Delaware

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Gary S. Nitsche, Esquire (argued) and W. Christopher Componovo, of Weik, Nitsche, Dougherty & Componovo, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Nancy Chrissinger Cobb, Esquire (argued), of Chrissinger & Baumberger, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee David Smith., Robert K. Pearce, Esquire (argued) and Thomas R. Riggs, Esquire, of Ferry, Joseph & Pearce, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee Joseph Ziemba., Joseph A. Gabay, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware;  Wayne A. Marvel, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee William Mangler.