ÿWPC¦ 1# ¾U:É % 0ˆ L‘wšÝ4w‹ 0Dš 0DÞ" AQ* 0J{ 0TÅ 0^ w 0h 0rç 0|Y 0†Õ 0[ 1uë 0d` BÄ Æá 0D§ 0@ë 0D+ D/o Bž D3»U*îB)DCA AM„„Ñv~UvÓÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(`o$¡¡ÑTRY 3Ø'ÿ LetterY 3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø'ÿ LetterTÑÔ  ÔC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT PEEEEED•  !" #$ %&'E()Ó€3ê‚_#¤Ôô3|x5(ô(2ý@$¤¤Ý ƒo!ÝÑTRY3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ôà¶ôXXÔÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ=€ÿ§°XdÐd=Óà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó!"#$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd!#,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌApril€6,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€ÿ§XXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñœò òÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òFiled:ó ó€òò€€€€€€€€€€€April€6,€1998à€ àóóÌÌÌÌREBECCA€FAY€WOODS,à@ à)ÌHARRY€B.€WOODS,€JR.,€ANDà@ à)ÌSHIRLEY€ANN€WOODS,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àDAVIDSON€CHANCERYÌà àPLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS,à@ à)à à€€€€€€€€NO.€94„2388„IÌà@ à)Ìv.à@ à)à àHon.€Irvin€H.€Kilcrease,€Jr.,Ìà@ à)à à€à àChancellorÌHARRY€B.€WOODS€PLUMBINGà@ à)ÌCOMPANY,€INC.,€HARPETHà@ à)à àNo.€01S01„9606„CH„00124ÌÙ€!ÙßR€-.,A1-j|Žÿ7` ç `€€@ÿRßCONSTRUCTION€CO.,€INC.,€ANDà@ à)ÌTRAVELERS€INSURANCE€COMPANY,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àDEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.à@ à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTSóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€APPELLEES,€HarpethÏóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòConstruction€Co.,€Inc.€andÏTravelersóóÌOthal€Smith,€Jr.à àà àà àà àòòInsurance€Companyóó:ÌNashvilleÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€G.€McCaskill,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTaylor,€Philbin,€Pigue,€Marchetti€&Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBennettÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òÔ€*èÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€*XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDà€ àHOLDER,€J.ÇÓÓà àà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àWe€granted€this€workers'€compensation€appeal€to€address€two€issues:€Ï(1)€€whether€the€decedent's€death€arose€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment;Ïand€(2)€€whether€the€decedent€was€the€initial€aggressor;€and€if€so,€whether€theÏaggressor€doctrine€precluded€recovery.€€We€find€that€the€decedent's€deathÏarose€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€employment.€€As€to€the€second€issue,€we€holdÏthe€common€law€aggressor€defense€as€it€relates€to€workers'€compensationÏclaims€under€the€Act€is€abolished€in€Tennessee€and€does€not€bar€theÏdecedent's€recovery.ÌÌÓ  Óò òFACTSó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€decedent,€his€nephew€and€his€son€arrived€at€a€house€to€perform€aÏplumbing€job.€€Charles€Langley,€Jr.,€was€at€the€house€performing€floorÏrenovations€to€the€entryway€when€the€decedent€arrived.€€Langley€had€placed€aÏsign€on€the€front€door€indicating€that€the€entryway€should€not€be€used.€€LangleyÏfurther€placed€tape€across€the€doorway€between€the€kitchen€and€the€entryway.ÌÌà àThe€decedent,€his€nephew€and€his€son€entered€the€house€from€the€rear.€ÏThey€ducked€under€the€tape€that€Langley€used€to€cordon€off€the€entryway€andÍproceeded€to€walk€across€the€entryway€floor€to€gain€access€to€the€basementÏstairs.€€Langley€then€approached€the€decedent's€son€with€a€knife€andÏthreatened€to€kill€him.€€The€decedent€and€Langley€had€a€heated€exchangeÏconcerning€Langley's€threat€to€kill€the€decedent's€son.€€The€project€supervisorÏintervened€and€was€able€to€diffuse€the€situation€temporarily.ÌÌà àThe€decedent,€his€nephew€and€his€son€left€the€house€and€walked€towardÏtheir€vehicles.€€The€decedent€spoke€briefly€with€his€son€and€then€began€walkingÏtoward€Langley's€van.€€The€decedent€apparently€charged€Langley€and€wasÏintercepted€by€the€project€supervisor€who€again€attempted€to€intervene.€ÏLangley,€however,€drew€an€automatic€pistol€and€shot€the€decedent€five€times.€ÏThe€decedent€died€as€a€result€of€the€gunshot€wounds.ÌÌà àThe€decedent's€family€filed€for€workers'€compensation€benefits.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€decedent's€death€arose€out€of€and€in€the€course€of€hisÏemployment.€€The€trial€court,€however,€held€that€the€decedent€was€not€entitled€toÏrecover€because€he€became€the€aggressor€after€the€initial€confrontation€hadÏconcluded.€€The€trial€court's€judgment€was€affirmed€by€a€workers'€compensationÏpanel.ÌÌÓ  Óò òDISCUSSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Tennessee€Workers'€Compensation€Act€("Act"),€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð50„6„101€òòetóó€òòseqóó.,€provides€the€exclusive€remedies€for€workers€sustainingÏwork„related€injuries.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„108.€€An€employee's€right€toÏrecover€under€the€Act€requires€a€finding€that€the€injury€arose€"out€of€and€in€theÏcourse€of€employment."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„102(5).€€The€phrases€"arisingÏout€of"€and€"in€the€course€of"€employment€comprise€two€separate€requirements.€ÏThe€phrase€"in€the€course€of"€refers€to€the€time,€place€and€circumstances€underÏwhich€the€injury€occurred.€€òòMcAdams€v.€Canaleóó,€294€S.W.2d€696,€699€(Tenn.Ï1956).€€The€phrase€"arising€out€of"€refers€to€an€injury's€origin.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThe€"course€of€employment"€requirement€is€satisfied€when€an€injuryÏoccurs€within€the€time€and€place€limitations€of€the€employment€relationship€andÏduring€an€activity€that€had€some€connection€with€the€employee's€job„relatedÏfunctions.€€The€decedent€had€arrived€at€a€job€site€where€a€dwelling€was€beingÏrenovated.€€He€entered€the€dwelling€at€which€he€was€to€perform€a€plumbing€job.€ÏLangley€was€a€worker€present€in€the€dwelling€when€the€decedent€arrived.€€TheÏdecedent,€his€son€and€his€nephew€walked€across€a€floor€that€Langley€wasÏrenovating€to€gain€access€to€the€basement.€€Langley€became€irate€andÏthreatened€to€kill€the€decedent's€son€with€a€carpentry€knife.€€The€confrontationÏensued€until€the€decedent€was€shot€at€the€job€site€outside€of€the€dwelling.€ÍAccordingly,€the€decedent's€death€occurred€during€the€course€of€the€decedent'sÏemployment.ÌÌà àWe€shall€now€focus€on€whether€the€decedent's€death€arose€out€of€hisÏemployment.€€An€accident€arises€out€of€employment€when€there€is€a€causalÏrelationship€between€the€employment€and€the€injury.€€òòOrman€v.€WilliamsÏSonoma,€Inc.óó,€803€S.W.2d€672,€676€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€issues€of€whether€assaults€upon€employees€arise€out€ofÏthe€scope€of€employment€can€best€be€divided€into€three€general€classifications:€Ï(1)€€assaults€with€an€"inherent€connection"€to€employment€such€as€disputes€overÏperformance,€pay€or€termination;€(2)€€assaults€stemming€from€"inherentlyÏprivate"€disputes€imported€into€the€employment€setting€from€the€claimant'sÏdomestic€or€private€life€and€not€exacerbated€by€the€employment;€and€(3)€Ïassaults€resulting€from€a€"neutral€force"€such€as€random€assaults€on€employeesÏby€individuals€outside€the€employment€relationship.ÌÌà àAssaults€with€an€"inherent€connection"€to€employment€are€compensable.ÏòòSeeóó€òòW.S.€Dickey€Mfg.€Co.€v.€Mooreóó,€347€S.W.2d€493€(Tenn.€1961)€(injuriesÏarising€out€of€dispute€over€job€performance€compensable);€òòWhaley€v.€PatentÏButton€Co.óó,€202€S.W.2d€649€(Tenn.€1947)€(injuries€inflicted€by€ex„employees€onÍemployees€while€performing€duties€similar€to€those€that€had€been€performed€byÏthe€ex„employee€are€compensable).€€Assaults€stemming€from€"inherentlyÏprivate"€disputes€imported€into€the€employment€setting€from€the€claimant'sÏdomestic€or€private€life€and€not€exacerbated€by€the€employment€are€notÏcompensable.€òòSeeóó€òòBrimhall€V.€Home€Insurance€Co.óó,€694€S.W.2d€931€(Tenn.Ï1985)€(fight€over€use€of€personal€items€not€compensable);€òòWhite€v.€WhitewayÏPharmacy,€Inc.óó,€360€S.W.2d€12€(Tenn.€1962)€(employee€murdered€on€employerÏpremises€by€non„employee€husband€over€domestic€dispute€non„compensable).€ÏAssaults€resulting€from€a€"neutral€force"€such€as€random€assaults€may€or€mayÏnot€be€compensable€depending€on€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€theÏemployment.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBeck€v.€Stateóó,€779€S.W.2d€367€(Tenn.€1989)€(whereÏemployment€necessarily€exposes€employee€to€public€risks,€random€assault€fromÏthird€party€is€compensable).ÌÌà àThe€altercation€between€the€decedent€and€Langley€originated€in€anÏargument€concerning€work€that€Langley€was€performing€at€the€decedent's€jobÏsite.€€Moreover,€the€entire€focus€of€the€dispute€was€apparently€related€to€theÏemployment€setting.€€We,€therefore,€find€that€the€decedent's€death€had€anÏ"inherent€connection"€to€the€employment€setting€and€arose€out€of€employmentÏas€contemplated€by€the€Act.ÌÌà àThe€next€issue€with€which€we€are€confronted€is:€€(1)€€whether€theÏdecedent€was€an€initial€aggressor;€and,€if€so,€(2)€€whether€the€decedent's€deathÏwas€rendered€non„compensable€by€an€initial€aggressor€defense.€€Both€the€trialÏcourt€and€the€workers'€compensation€panel€concluded€the€decedent's€deathÏwas€non„compensable€because€"[t]he€decedent€was€the€aggressor€since€theÏaltercation€between€the€parties€had€terminated€before€[the€decedent]€chargedÏLangley."ÌÌà àOne€question€that€arises€in€work„related€assaults€is€whetherÏcompensation€should€be€denied€an€injured€worker€who€was€an€aggressor.€€òòSeeóóÏ1€Larson,€òòWorkmen's€Compensation€Lawóó€11.15(a)€(1990).€€While€"abolition€ofÏthe€aggressor€defense€is€one€of€the€most€rapid€doctrinal€reversals€.€.€.€inÏcompensation€law,"€jurisdictions€recognizing€the€doctrine€deny€benefits€despiteÏthe€fact€that€the€injury€in€dispute€was€work„related.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€at€ðð€11.15(c).€€AÏcommon€rationale€for€denial€of€benefits€under€the€doctrine€is€that€the€worker'sÏinjury€arose€out€of€his€act€of€aggression€thereby€negating€the€assertion€that€theÏinjury€arose€out€of€the€employment.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àA€majority€of€jurisdictions€have€rejected€the€aggressor€defense€in€theÏabsence€of€express€statutory€language€providing€for€the€defense.€€Courts€haveÏreasoned€that€an€aggressor€defense€is€a€purely€fault„based€concept€borrowedÍfrom€tort€law€and€has€no€place€in€compensation€law.€€The€chain€of€causation€isÏnot€necessarily€broken€by€striking€the€first€blow€provided€that€the€episodeÏoriginated€in€the€employment€or€the€sole€contact€between€the€disputants€wasÏemployment„related.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòTriad€Painting€Co.€v.€Blairóó,€812€P.2d€638Ï(Colo.€1991);€òòSpringston€v.€IML€Freight,€Inc.óó,€704€P.2d€394€(Kan.€App.€1985).ÏOne€state€has€rejected€the€defense€considering€it€a€"judicially€created€bar€toÏrecovery€imposed€upon€an€entirely€statutory€remedial€scheme."€€òòGeeslin€v.ÏWorkmen's€Compensation€Comm'róó,€294€S.E.2d€150,€152€(W.€Va.€1982).ÌÌà àThe€primary€purpose€of€our€Workers'€Compensation€Act€("Act")€is€to€affordÏworkers€compensation€for€job„related€injured€regardless€of€fault.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„103;€òòPartee€v.€Memphis€Concrete€Pipe€Co.óó,€295€S.W.Ï68€(1927).€€The€Act€has€further€been€interpreted€as€providing€for€a€speedy€trialÏso€as€to€assure€quick€and€efficient€benefits€to€injured€workers.€€òòStovall€v.ÏGeneral€Shoe€Corp.óó,€321€S.W.2d€559€(Tenn.€1959).€€Moreover,€the€Act€is€basedÏon€a€mutual€renunciation€of€common€law€rights€and€defenses.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€50„6„108;€òòseeóó€òòLiberty€Mutual€Insurance€Co.,€v.€Stevensonóó,€368€S.W.2d€760Ï(Tenn.€1963)€(noting€Act€€is€complete€substitute€for€previous€remedies€in€tort).ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€Act€does€not€explicitly€provide€for€an€initial€aggressorÏdefense.€€The€aggressor€defense€in€Tennessee,€therefore,€is€a€common€lawÍcreation€that€introduces€a€fault„based€concept€into€a€comprehensive€statutoryÏscheme€designed€not€to€analyze€culpability€but€to€allocate€cost€and€ensureÏcompensation.€€òòSeeóó€òòSpringstonóó,€704€P.2d€at€398€(holding€disapproval€ofÏemployee's€misconduct€is€not€grounds€for€frustrating€the€main€purpose€ofÏworkers'€compensation€which€is€to€prevent€dependency€of€the€claimant€and€hisÏfamily).€€An€analysis€requiring€a€determination€of€who€threw€the€first€punch,Ïwhether€a€sufficient€cooling„off€period€had€occurred€between€separate€incidentsÏand€whether€a€worker€reacted€in€excessive€manner€is€contrary€to€the€quick€andÏefficient€administration€of€disability€benefits.€€òòSeeóó€òòGeeslinóó,€294€S.E.2d€at€153Ï(noting€"difficulty€in€characterizing€one€of€the€participants€as€the€initial€aggressorÏand€the€other€as€the€innocent€victim€when€faced€with€an€escalating€dispute€thatÏculminates€in€physical€violence").€€Moreover,€the€Act€is€purely€a€creature€of€theÏgeneral€assembly,€and€any€change€in€its€structure€must€come€from€the€generalÏassembly€and€not€from€the€courts.€€òòLindsey€v.€Huntóó,€384€S.W.2d€441€(1965),Ïòòrev'dóó€òòonóó€òòotheróó€òògroundsóó,€òòBettis€v.€Tom€Wade€Ginóó,€810€S.W.2d€140€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏIn€the€absence€of€an€express€statutory€authorization,€we€hold€the€common€lawÏaggressor€defense€as€it€relates€to€workers'€compensation€claims€under€the€ActÏis€abolished€in€Tennessee€and€does€not€bar€the€decedent's€recovery.€€The€caseÏis€reversed€and€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistentÏwith€this€opinion.€€The€costs€of€this€appeal€shall€be€assessed€against€theÏdefendants€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÔ&  ÔÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòòà€ àóóÌà àà àà àà àà àJanice€M.€Holder,€JusticeÌÌÌò òPanel:Ìó óÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌReid,€J.ÌTomlin,€S.J.ÌÌDrowota,€J.,€not€participatingÔ'  ÔÌBirch,€J.,€not€participating