Did Surf Shop Worker’s Ladder Injury Claim ‘Jump the Shark?’

What Do You Think?

Hilton Head, SC (WorkersCompensation.com) – Workers compensation is generally available for an injury that occurs in the course and scope of employment. A South Carolina case delves into the question of whether an injury remains work-related if it occurs when the worker is engaging in an action her boss prohibits.

A surf shop employee returned from vacation with an injury. That day, her boss told her not to climb the ladder in the store, but she did so anyway while performing her job duties. She fell from the ladder and injured herself.

The employer denied her workers’ compensation claim, reasoning that the injury did not occur in the course and scope of employment.

Did the surf shop employee’s injury occur outside the sphere of employment?

A. Yes. She was injured while violating her boss’s prohibition on climbing the ladder.

B. No. Using the ladder to retrieve items for customers was an essential aspect of her job.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Bridges v. Harbour Town Surf Shop, LLC, No. 2022-000600 (S.C. Ct. App. 07/17/24, unpublished), which held that the employee’s claim did not occur in the course and scope of employment. 

The court explained that when an employer specifically limits the scope of a worker’s job and the worker is injured while exceeding those limits, the injury isn’t compensable.

Not every violation of an employer’s orders leads to such a result, the court stated. An employee may violate his employer’s rules for conducting himself at work but remain within the sphere of employment. 

That wasn’t the case here, however, where the boss clearly prohibited the employee from using the ladder. The employee’s violation of that limit took her conduct and associated injury outside the sphere of her employment, the court held.

"[B]ecause she disregarded Employer's instructions, which led to her injury, she was outside the sphere of employment when her injury occurred and thus, the injury was not compensable,” the court wrote.

Share This Article: