Anderson Clayton & Co. v. Industrial Commission
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JACOBSON, Judge.
The sole issue presented in this review of an award of the Industrial Commission is whether the injuries sustained by the claimant while engaged in “horseplay” are industrially compensable.
The facts are not in material dispute.
Petitioner employer, Anderson Clayton & Company, which operates a cotton gin, hired respondent employee, Danny W. Graves, as a janitor to work from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 A.M. It assigned Graves to work in a shed called the lint room. Prior to this assignment, Graves was not instructed regarding his duties, warned of dangerous conditions, or…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Royall v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1970
- Goodyear Aircraft Corporation v. GilbertArizona Supreme Court · 1947
- Matter of Industrial Comr. (Siguin) v. McCarthyNew York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Truck Insurance Exchange v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1974
- Gaumer v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1963
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Grammatico v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 2005
- Dependable Messenger, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
- Jaimes v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
- Schroeder v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1982
- Lemmon v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1986
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.