solution

Kelley v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc

Web 2010 Ohio App. Lexis 1269 (2010)

Court of Appeals of Ohio

“Despite Coca-Cola’s assertion, an exception to the general rule prohibiting one from participating in workers’ compensation benefits applies where the employee is injured by horseplay commonly carried on by the employees with the knowledge and consent or acquiescence of the employer.”

—Powell, Judge

Facts

Chad Kelley, an account manager with Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., attended a mandatory corporate kick-off event celebrating the release of a new Coca-Cola product. As part of a team-building event, all the employees in attendance, including Kelley, were encouraged to canoe down a 3-mile stretch of a river. Kelley and a coworker paddled on the river without incident. Thereafter, Kelley walked up an embankment to the parking lot and waited for a bus to arrive to take him back to his vehicle. However, while Kelley waited for the bus, a number of employees, including Whitaker, who was in charge of the entire event, were seen splashing, tipping canoes, and getting everyone wet. A short time later, Whitaker, who was soaking wet, and Hall, a Coca-Cola distribution manager, grabbed Kelley and tried to pull him down the embankment and into the river. When their efforts failed, Hall grabbed Kelley and slammed him to the ground, causing Kelley to injure his neck. As a result of the incident, Kelley was treated for a herniated disc and a cervical dorsal strain.
Kelley filed a claim for workers’ compensation. CocaCola opposed the claim, asserting that because Kelley was involved in employee horseplay, he was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court returned a verdict in favor of Kelley, entitling him to participate in workers’ compensation benefits. Coca-Cola appealed.

Issue

Is Kelley entitled to workers’ compensation benefits?

Language of the Court

Coca-Cola argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that even if it found Kelley instigated or participated in horseplay that proximately caused his injury, he was, nonetheless, still entitled to participate in workers’ compensation benefits so long as Coca-Cola acquiesced or consented to that horseplay.

Decision

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that Kelley was entitled to participate in workers’ compensation benefits because he was injured while engaging in conduct with the knowledge and consent of the employer, Coca-Cola.

Ethics Questions

Did Coca-Cola act ethically in denying Kelley’s workers’ compensation claim? What is the public policy that underlies workers’ compensation laws?