By: Ryan Knight, Associate, Miami

 

Office romances are common occurrences and unless you work in a “Mad Men” style office, those relationships typically do not end in a workers’ compensation claim. These romances can, however, lead to altercations or assaults at the workplace. Generally, assaults in the workplace resulting from personal animosity will not be compensable if the workplace is merely the fortuitous site of the altercation. San Marco Co. v. Langford, 391 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In order for injuries resulting from these types of assaults to be deemed compensable, the claimant must clear two hurdles.

First, the claimant must show that he or she was not the initial aggressor.  W. T. Edwards Hospital v. Rakestraw, 114 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Second, the claimant must show that the animosity between the assailant and the claimant was either created by, or increased, as a result of the workplace. San Marco Co., 391 So.2d at 327. Whether or not the claimant was the initial aggressor is a fairly straightforward question. The question of whether the workplace either created or exacerbated the animosity between the claimant and the assailant is much more complicated.

In Carnegie v. Pan American Linen, the claimant was attacked and stabbed by a woman upset with the end of their romantic relationship. 476 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The JCC initially ruled that his injuries were not compensable because the altercation was the result of “purely personal” reasons. Id. The First DCA reversed the JCC’s decision and stated that the workplace was not merely the fortuitous location of the assault. Id. Rather, their relationship and resulting altercation were directly attributable to their workplace. Id.

Tampa Maid Seafood Products v. Porter highlights a quintessential love triangle problem in the workplace. 415 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).   In that case, a love triangle led to an altercation between two female co-workers who were involved with the same male colleague. The assailant approached the claimant to confront her about the relationship with the man, and the resulting fight ended with the claimant suffering multiple knife wounds. Id. The court ruled that these injuries were compensable because the claimant was not the initial aggressor and because animosity between the two women was created by their workplace romance. Id. at 884–85.

San Marco Co. v. Langford is a great illustration of when the personal animosity was not created by, or exacerbated by the workplace. The night before the assault, the claimant and his co-worker got into an argument about the claimant owing the co-worker money for rent. Id. The following day the assailant came to the workplace with a shotgun and shot the claimant as he attempted to flee. Id. The court ruled that these injuries were not compensable because the workplace was merely the fortuitous site of an incident involving a purely personal dispute. Id. at 327.

Therefore, if you can show either that the claimant can was the initial aggressor of the fight or that the workplace did not contribute towards the claimant and assailant’s dispute, the resulting injuries will likely be deemed non-compensable.

Ryan Knight | Associate