13.03. Failure to Use Safety Devices.

• Court: Kansas

Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 13.03. Failure to Use Safety Devices SummariesChapter 1313.03 Failure to Use Safety DevicesSee Also,Baldwin v. Professional Lawn Care Srvs., Docket No. 1,024,450. (December 2005) September 2002 (Order) Claimant's failure to wear a safety device provided by respondent did not bar his entitlement to benefits under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. The actions of claimant's supervisor in merely requesting claimant wear the device cannot be said to be rigid enforcement of a safety rule in the absence of other evidence of punishment for failing to wear the device. Mays v. GCI Castings, Inc., Docket No. 1,003,531 (September 2002). August 1998. (Award) Respondent argues that claimant's injury resulted because he violated a safety rule when he jumped down from a platform without using a ladder and that such a violation constituted a willful failure to use guard or protection. The Board finds that intentional failure to use guard or protection is not necessarily "willful." The burden placed upon the employer when trying to prove "willful" conduct performed by the employee is substantial. "Willful" has been found to mean headstrong disposition, intractableness, acting without yielding to reason or being obstinate or stubborn. See Also Bersch v. Morris and Co., 106 Kan. 800, 189 Pac. 934 (1920); Carter v. Koch Engineering, 12 Kan. App.2d 74, 735 P.2d 247, rev. denied 241 Kan. 838 (1987). While claimant's action of jumping from the platform was spontaneous and thoughtless, it was not done with a headstrong or stubborn disposition. Claimant's actions were found to not rise to a willful failure to use a guard or protection and, therefore, K.S.A. 44-501(d) did not prevent him from receiving workers compensation benefits for his accidental injury. Spiker v. Pratt and Lambert United, Inc, Docket No. 213,763. January 1998. (Ph) The Appeals Board agrees with the Administrative Law Judge's decision that since...