Case Title: Grather v. The Gables Inn

Citation: 170 Vt. 377, 751 A.2d 762

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Grather v. The Gables Inn (98-021); 170 Vt. 377; 751 A.2d 762

[Opinion Filed 18-Feb-2000]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 14-Mar-2000]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter  of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 98-021

Joseph W. Grather	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.		                                 Department of Labor &
                                                 Industry

The Gables Inn, Ltd.	                         May Term, 1999

Steve Janson, Commissioner

Mark L. Stephen, East Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John A. Serafino and Tammy Besaw Denton of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd.,
  Rutland, for Defendant-Appellee.
  

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   Claimant Joseph Grather appeals from a Vermont Department
  of Labor  and Industry Commissioner's decision denying him workers'
  compensation benefits for an injury  sustained while skiing.  The
  Commissioner has certified two question for our review: (1) whether 
  claimant suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of
  employment with the  Gables Inn while skiing at Stowe on March 17, 1994,
  and (2) whether the amateur sports  exclusion of 21 V.S.A. § 601(14)(B)
  bars this claim. (FN1)  Because we find that claimant's injury

 

  arose in the course of employment and that the amateur sports exclusion
  does not  bar this claim, we reverse.

       During the fall of 1993, claimant went to Stowe hoping to find a job
  for the winter that  would enable him to ski.  When he inquired at the
  Gables Inn, he learned that it had just  advertised for a position as a
  "ski bum."  The "ski bum" was expected to live at the Gables,  prepare and
  serve breakfast in the mornings, and serve food and drinks at "apres ski"
  and dinner  in the late afternoons.  The position also entailed helping out
  with other chores, such as bringing  in wood and shoveling snow.  The
  compensation was $100 per week, room and board, tips, and  a restricted ski
  pass that allowed the "ski bum" to ski Stowe Mountain, but only during the
  middle  of the week.  The job was designed to leave time free to ski
  between late morning and 4:00 P.M.  in the afternoon.  Claimant applied for
  the position and was hired within a few days.  When he  arrived for work,
  his employer encouraged him to become acquainted with the town and the 
  slopes.  Throughout the winter, claimant skied during his time off, using
  his "ski bum" pass.  On  Thursday, March 17, 1994, claimant worked the
  breakfast shift, then went skiing, where he  crashed into a tree and
  incurred severe injuries.

       Claimant was disabled for some time, and unable to continue his work
  at the Gables.  He  filed a claim for workers' compensation, alleging that
  his skiing injury arose out of and in the  course of his employment because
  his skiing at Stowe Mountain benefitted his employer.  See 21  V.S.A §
  618(a) (personal injury compensable by employer if worker receives a
  personal injury  by accident "arising out of and in the course of his
  employment").

 

                           I. Course of Employment

 
       We consider first whether claimant's injury occurred during the course
  of his employment.  In analyzing this question, the Commissioner applied
  the three-alternative test for injuries incurred  during recreational or
  social activities outlined in 2 A. Larson & L. Larson, Workers' 
  Compensation Law § 22.01 (1997).  According to Larson, recreational or
  social activities are  within the course of employment when: 

     (1) they occur on the premises during a lunch or recreation period 
     as a regular incident of the employment; or (2) the employer, by 
     expressly or impliedly requiring participation, or by making the 
     activity part of the services of an employee, brings the activity 
     within the orbit of the employment; or (3) the employer derives 
     substantial direct benefit from the activity beyond the intangible 
     value of improvement in employee health and morale that is 
     common to all kinds of recreation and social life. 

  Id. § 22.01.  Quickly rejecting the first and second alternatives as
  inapplicable in this case, the  Commissioner focused on the third
  alternative.  The Commissioner found the claim failed there  as well,
  because the Gables received no benefit from providing its employees with a
  ski pass  beyond a general boost in morale.  The Commissioner's inquiry was
  limited to whether the  employer received any advertising or business
  advantage from claimant's skiing with the pass  provided by the employer.

       We concur with the Commissioner that the first two alternatives of the
  Larson test are  inapplicable.  However, we conclude that a careful
  analysis of the third alternative reveals that  the employer did receive a
  benefit sufficient to bring the claimant's skiing within the course of his 
  employment.  The Larson test categorizes cases to show several ways an
  employer can derive  benefit from recreational or social activities to
  satisfy the third alternative.  See id. § 22.05.  For  example, if an
  employee engages in social activities to entertain a customer, the employer
  can 

 

  benefit from enhanced sales, see id. § 22.05[1]; if an employer sponsors a
  sports team, the  employer can benefit through income from ticket sales,
  from the advertising value of having the  name of the business on the
  players' uniforms, or from media publicity about the team and its  sponsor,
  see id.§ 22.05[2]; and, most importantly for this case, if an employer
  provides  recreational opportunities as an inducement to attract employees,
  the employer benefits from the  labor it is able to attract, see id. §
  22.05[5].

       Here, the employer benefitted from the recreational opportunities it
  provided by inducing  employees to accept employment.  The leading case for
  this kind of employer benefit is Dorsch  v. Industrial Commission,