court: It was the duty of the deceased to obey [the rule]. It was a deliberate breach of his duty to disobey it. The rule was made and the equipment was supplied to safeguard workmen against unforeseen and hidden dangers such as caused the death of the employ[ee] here. The deceased was a lineman of seasoned experience. The risks of his employment were known to him. He was not only recently advised of, but was perfectly familiar with, the necessity of taking the prescribed precaution by us ing the gloves in the work in which he lost his life. To my mind his misconduct manifested a wanton indifference and a willful disregard of all caution and precaution. Id. at 39-40 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Mills v. Va. Elec. & Power Co., 197 Va. 547, 90 S.E.2d 124, 127 (1955) (<HOLDING>). More recently, in Spruill v. C.W. Wright
holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct holding that an employees purposeful violation of established safety rules despite instruction and warning constituted willful misconduct holding that willful misconduct on the part of a lineman working around energized wires precluded recovery where the employee knew of and violated the reasonable rule that required him to wear rubber gloves for his own safety holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga  349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action holding that an employee is guilty of misconduct connected with his work when he deliberately violates a company rule reasonably designed to protect the legitimate business interests of his employer or when his acts or omissions are of such a nature or so recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard of those interests and the duties and obligations he owes his employer