11/17/2025
Greetings, we often say stupidity is a not defense. For example, standing on a rolling chair to change a light bulb, throwing nails at co-workers, playing with fireworks at work, etc….all compensable claims in the caselaw.
However, there is a line of cases where actions by the claimant that are, shall we say, sub-intelligent acts are not compensable. These are Intentional injuries. The classic example is the claimant is mad and punches something, causing an injury. Even if the claimant says they didn’t mean to injure themselves, you can potentially still deny these claims. The 391st Bomber case below says if the claimant’s action is “so serious and so likely to result in real injury that it must be construed to show willful intent.”
The basis from the denial comes from the same section of the statute as the “aggressor doctrine” regarding fight cases, underlined below.
440.09(3) Compensation is not payable if the injury was occasioned primarily by the intoxication of the employee; by the influence of any drugs, barbiturates, or other stimulants not prescribed by a physician; or by the willful intention of the employee to injure or kill himself, herself, or another.
391ST Bomb Group v. Robbins, 654 So.2d 1200 (Fla 1st DCA 1995)
The Claimant was called in to his supervisor’s office and terminated for unsatisfactory work. The Claimant yelled some profanities, ripped open the office door, punched a wall, and then approached the exit door. He pushed hard on the security glass of the rear door causing it to shatter. Due to this, the Claimant suffered serious injuries to his hand and forearm requiring extensive medical treatment, including skin grafts.
The JCC found that the Claimant injured himself while upset and angry over his firing, but that there was no willful intention to injure himself, and was not precluded from benefits.
The Court determined that the Claimant’s deliberate acts of aggression were tantamount to a willful intent to injure apart from instinct or impulse. The Court defined the test as (1) the existence of some premeditation and malice coupled with (2) a reasonable expectation of bringing about real injury to himself or another. Some acts, even though impulsive, are so serious and so likely to result in real injury, that they must be construed to show a willful intent to injure.
In this case, the Court found his actions to be so serious and so likely to result in real injury that it must be construed to show willful intent.
As always, let me know if you have any questions and hope to see you at our upcoming events!
Check our website events page for other upcoming events and CEU’s for FL, GA and TN. https://eraclides.com/events/
Sincerely,
Morgan Indek | Managing Partner