known safety rule in Virginia

2012Compare Peanut City Iron & Metal Co. v. Jenkins, 207 Va. 399, 403 , 150 S.E.2d 120, 123 (1966) (“[I]n order for [the employer and carrier] to prevail upon the defense of ‘wilful misconduct’, on the ground that claimant intentionally violated a well known safety rule, they had to show that the rule was strictly enforced by the employer.” (emphases added)), with Buzzo, 17 Va. App. at 332 , 437 S.E.2d at 208 (“[T]he employee may rebut the defense by showing that the rule was not kept alive by bona fide enforcement . . . .” (emphasis added)), quoted with approval in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v.

2012Compare Peanut City Iron & Metal Co. v. Jenkins, 207 Va. 399, 403 , 150 S.E.2d 120, 123 (1966) (“[I]n order for [the employer and carrier] to prevail upon the defense of ‘wilful misconduct’, on the ground that claimant intentionally violated a well known safety rule, they had to show that the rule was strictly enforced by the employer.” (emphases added)), with Buzzo, 17 Va. App. at 332 , 437 S.E.2d at 208 (“[T]he employee may rebut the defense by showing that the rule was not kept alive by bona fide enforcement . . . .” (emphasis added)), quoted with approval in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v.

2021See Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Mabin, 203 Va. 490, 494 (1962) (holding that a “damaging statement made in one part of [a litigant’s] testimony -9- must be considered in the light of an explanation of such statement made in [another] part” and that the fact finder generally “determine[s] whether it will accept such explanation” in light of “all the other evidence”), cited with approval in Olsten, 230 Va. at 320-21 .

2021See Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Mabin, 203 Va. 490, 494 (1962) (holding that a “damaging statement made in one part of [a litigant’s] testimony -9- must be considered in the light of an explanation of such statement made in [another] part” and that the fact finder generally “determine[s] whether it will accept such explanation” in light of “all the other evidence”), cited with approval in Olsten, 230 Va. at 320-21 .

2019As the appellant in this case, the claimant bears the “burden of showing” that the Commission committed “reversible error.” See Burke v. Catawba Hosp., 59 Va. App. 828, 838 (2012).

2014Postal Workers Union, 498 U.S. 517, 531 (1991) (Stevens, J., concurring))). -9- For the same reason, we need not consider the merits of claimant’s fifth assignment of error which states that the commission erred in denying benefits because neither the push stick rule nor the safety guard rule was strictly enforced.3 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we find the commission did not err in denying claimant benefits on the basis that claimant violated a known safety rule by placing his hand too close to the moving saw blade.

2014However, this error by the commission does not undermine its finding that the employer met its burden of proving that claimant violated a known safety rule on this occasion. -7- Scouts of America, Inc., 239 Va. 572, 582 , 391 S.E.2d 322, 327-28 (1990) (quoting Thomas v. Snow, 162 Va. 654, 660 , 174 S.E. 837, 839 (1934)).

2014However, this error by the commission does not undermine its finding that the employer met its burden of proving that claimant violated a known safety rule on this occasion. -7- Scouts of America, Inc., 239 Va. 572, 582 , 391 S.E.2d 322, 327-28 (1990) (quoting Thomas v. Snow, 162 Va. 654, 660 , 174 S.E. 837, 839 (1934)).

2014However, this error by the commission does not undermine its finding that the employer met its burden of proving that claimant violated a known safety rule on this occasion. -7- Scouts of America, Inc., 239 Va. 572, 582 , 391 S.E.2d 322, 327-28 (1990) (quoting Thomas v. Snow, 162 Va. 654, 660 , 174 S.E. 837, 839 (1934)).

2014However, this error by the commission does not undermine its finding that the employer met its burden of proving that claimant violated a known safety rule on this occasion. -7- Scouts of America, Inc., 239 Va. 572, 582 , 391 S.E.2d 322, 327-28 (1990) (quoting Thomas v. Snow, 162 Va. 654, 660 , 174 S.E. 837, 839 (1934)).

2014See Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 58, 64 , 628 S.E.2d 74, 77 (2006) (en banc) (“[A]n appellate court decides cases ‘on the best and narrowest ground available.’” (quoting Air Courier Conference v. Am.

2014See Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 58, 64 , 628 S.E.2d 74, 77 (2006) (en banc) (“[A]n appellate court decides cases ‘on the best and narrowest ground available.’” (quoting Air Courier Conference v. Am.

2012Boysaw v. Hercules, Inc., 21 Va. App. 458, 464 , 465 S.E.2d 135, 138 (1995).

2012Boysaw v. Hercules, Inc., 21 Va. App. 458, 464 , 465 S.E.2d 135, 138 (1995).

2012See Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Thaxton, 161 Va. 863, 870-72 , 172 S.E. 261, 263-64 (1934) (reversing award of benefits to family of electrician who was killed when he unintentionally came into contact with a power line while replacing light bulbs, which he undertook without first disconnecting power to adjoining power lines as required by a rule of his employer).

2012See Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Thaxton, 161 Va. 863, 870-72 , 172 S.E. 261, 263-64 (1934) (reversing award of benefits to family of electrician who was killed when he unintentionally came into contact with a power line while replacing light bulbs, which he undertook without first disconnecting power to adjoining power lines as required by a rule of his employer).

2012Compare Peanut City Iron & Metal Co. v. Jenkins, 207 Va. 399, 403 , 150 S.E.2d 120, 123 (1966) (“[I]n order for [the employer and carrier] to prevail upon the defense of ‘wilful misconduct’, on the ground that claimant intentionally violated a well known safety rule, they had to show that the rule was strictly enforced by the employer.” (emphases added)), with Buzzo, 17 Va. App. at 332 , 437 S.E.2d at 208 (“[T]he employee may rebut the defense by showing that the rule was not kept alive by bona fide enforcement . . . .” (emphasis added)), quoted with approval in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v.

2012Compare Peanut City Iron & Metal Co. v. Jenkins, 207 Va. 399, 403 , 150 S.E.2d 120, 123 (1966) (“[I]n order for [the employer and carrier] to prevail upon the defense of ‘wilful misconduct’, on the ground that claimant intentionally violated a well known safety rule, they had to show that the rule was strictly enforced by the employer.” (emphases added)), with Buzzo, 17 Va. App. at 332 , 437 S.E.2d at 208 (“[T]he employee may rebut the defense by showing that the rule was not kept alive by bona fide enforcement . . . .” (emphasis added)), quoted with approval in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v.

2012Compare Peanut City Iron & Metal Co. v. Jenkins, 207 Va. 399, 403 , 150 S.E.2d 120, 123 (1966) (“[I]n order for [the employer and carrier] to prevail upon the defense of ‘wilful misconduct’, on the ground that claimant intentionally violated a well known safety rule, they had to show that the rule was strictly enforced by the employer.” (emphases added)), with Buzzo, 17 Va. App. at 332 , 437 S.E.2d at 208 (“[T]he employee may rebut the defense by showing that the rule was not kept alive by bona fide enforcement . . . .” (emphasis added)), quoted with approval in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v.

2012Compare Peanut City Iron & Metal Co. v. Jenkins, 207 Va. 399, 403 , 150 S.E.2d 120, 123 (1966) (“[I]n order for [the employer and carrier] to prevail upon the defense of ‘wilful misconduct’, on the ground that claimant intentionally violated a well known safety rule, they had to show that the rule was strictly enforced by the employer.” (emphases added)), with Buzzo, 17 Va. App. at 332 , 437 S.E.2d at 208 (“[T]he employee may rebut the defense by showing that the rule was not kept alive by bona fide enforcement . . . .” (emphasis added)), quoted with approval in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v.

2005“On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below.” Tomes v. James City Fire, 39 Va. App. 424, 429 , 573 S.E.2d 312, 315 (2002).

2005“On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below.” Tomes v. James City Fire, 39 Va. App. 424, 429 , 573 S.E.2d 312, 315 (2002).