Court Opinion

ID: 9638018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:30:10.854579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:02.767446
License: Public Domain

Hall, J.
(dissenting). I would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in its opinion. It is inconceivable that the Legislature intended *307by N. J. 8. A. 34:15-43 to require the use of municipal funds to provide workmen’s compensation for injuries sustained in the course of essentially social enterprises of volunteer firemen, if, indeed, it has the power to do so. While those acquainted with the functions and activities of volunteer fire companies recognize the inestimable value of the public service they render and the necessity of public provision for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of that duty and functions reasonably related thereto (as this statutory section clearly intends), they also fully realize that many of their activities, though completely proper, are social in nature, for purely personal enjoyment and financed by funds privately obtained. Such activities are quite distinct from the fire-fighting function and beyond the effective control of the municipality. As one weekly newspaper recently put it in the course of a series of articles on fire protection in rural and suburban areas: “* * * the firehouse is regarded as the workingman’s most exclusive and demanding social club.” Somerset Messenger Gazette, Somerville, N. J., February 20, 1964, p. 17. A volunteer fireman hurt while playing softball on the company team should be no more entitled to compensation at public expense than the off-duty policeman similarly injured at the annual clambake of his Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association or the factory worker (at the cost of his employer) who breaks his leg in a three-legged race at his union’s picnic. I feel confident the Legislature could not possibly have intended otherwise.
Justice Haneman joins in this opinion.
For reversal — Chief Justice Weintratjb, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor and Schettino — 5.
For affirmance — Justices Hall and Haneman.