In discussing its decision, the court pointed out that an injury comes within the scope of the workers compensation act if it results from an accident arising out of and in the course of the injured employee's employment. It was undisputed in this case that the injury suffered by Simms resulted from an accident in the course of his employment at the restaurant. So, the coverage really hinged upon whether the injury arose out of his employment.

 The Virginia Supreme Court stated that it applied the “actual risk test” to determine if an injury arises out of employment. Under this test, an injury comes within the WC act only if there is a causal connection between the employee's injury and the conditions under which the employer requires the work to be done. If the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, then the injury arises out of the employment. And applying the actual risk test, injuries to a nonparticipating innocent victim that result from workplace horseplay are held to be an actual risk of the workplace because the workplace creates the situation that results in the injury. In essence, the playful actions of the fellow employee are found to be an actual risk of the employment because horseplay is a natural incident of work contemplated by a reasonable person, and when a fellow employee engages in horseplay by doing something in a playful or joking manner that injures an innocent nonparticipating co-worker, such injury is inherent to the injured co-worker's employment or is directed toward the co-employee as an employee.

 Accordingly, the court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals and remanded the case back to the workers compensation commission to consider the claim consistent with the law as stated in this opinion.

 Editor's Note: The Virginia Supreme Court assures everyone with this opinion that horseplay occurs naturally in every workplace environment, and if the horseplay results in someone being hurt, that injury is compensable under the workers compensation system. It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court quoted from an opinion by Justice Cardozo that “it was but natural to expect men and boys to deport themselves as young men and boys, replete with the activities of life and health. For workmen of that age or even of maturer years to indulge in a moment's diversion from work to joke or play a prank upon a fellow workman is a matter of common knowledge to everyone who employs labor”. In other words, boys will be boys.

 Of course, the words of Justice Cardozo and the decision here are tempered by the fact that the injured worker was not a participant in the horseplay. So, an injury caused by horseplay can be seen as being causally connected to the workplace and as arising out of employment, but an innocent nonparticipating employee who is injured generally stands a better chance of recovering WC benefits than those who are injured while actually taking part in the horseplay.