Court Opinion

ID: 9575790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:17:18.889344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:04.681728
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent, concluding the majority erred in affirming the denial of workmen’s compensation benefits to *459appellant for injuries she sustained while participating on a company sponsored softball team.
The essential facts are not in dispute. Appellant was injured while playing softball for a company team after work hours in a public park. Respondents, Union Bleachery/ Cone Mills contributed to the company’s softball team as follows: (1) permitted organizational meetings on company time and recruiting posters on company property; (2) required the team to play in a recognized industrial league which prohibited the participation of non-employees; (3) provided entry fees, equipment and uniforms bearing the company name; and (4) renovated a former softball field for team practices on company land. Appellant does not allege the company paid, recruited, or required employees to play, nor does she contend that actual play or practice took place during working hours.
The majority, in denying benefits, erroneously relies on Pate v. Plymouth Manufacturing Company, et al., 198 S. C. 159, 17 S. E. (2d) 146 (1941), in which this Court affirmed the denial of benefits under the Act for injuries sustained, by an employee while returning from a baseball game in which he had participated, because they did not “arise out of and in the course of his employment.”
While 'there are similarities between this case and Pate, they are distinguishable regarding the critical factor of employer involvement. In Pate, the ■ company participated only as a financial sponsor. Here, in addition to financial support, respondents allowed organizational meetings on company time, allowed recruiting posters on company property, renovated a practice field on company land and required the team to join the county league which prohibited the participation of non-employees.
In Wilson v. General Motors Corp., et al., 98 N. Y. 468, 84 N. E. (2d) 781 (1949) the court of appeals reversed an award of benefits under the Act because the sole involve*460ment of the employer was that it furnished playing equipment and allowed conferences as to- game details on company time.
Professor Larson, in discussing the Wilson case, stated:
“The facts supporting work-connection have been reduced in this case (Wilson) almost to the minimum that might law (sic) the basis for a claim; and that minimum has just failed to make the grade. One feels that a slight strengthening of the facts could easily have changed the narrow margin of defeat into one of success while a slight weakening of the facts would have left almost nothing on which to found a claim at all.” Vol. 1A, Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 22.24, p. 5-112.
In Complitano v. Steel & Alloy Tank Co., 34 N. J. 300, 168 A. (2d) 809 (1961), the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the denial of benefits for the reasons set forth in Judge Conford’s dissent in Complitano v. Steel & Alloy Tank Co., 63 N. J. Super. 444, 164 A. (2d) 792 (1960). Judge Conford, using the rationale of Professor Larson, quoted above, distinguished Wilson and held the employee should be compensated for an injury sustained in a softball game after working hours in a city sponsored league on his company’s team. The company’s involvement in CompKtano consisted of financial support amounting to $300 (for league entry fee, uniforms inscribed with the company name and equipment). In addition the league’s standings were printed in the local newspaper, the public attended the games and at the end of the season the company team upon winning the championship was rewarded by the employer with trophies and tickets tO' the World Series. The company’s financial expenditure was approximately $300 as opposed to a weekly payroll of $20,000, and only a small percentage of the employees participated in the recreational activity. Judge Conford found the facts in Complitano to be stronger than those in Wilson thereby dictating a finding of compensability.
*461Here, the rationale of Professor Larson as utilized by-Judge Conford and adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Complitano controls the disposition of the issue raised herein. The involvement of respondents, both financial and non-financial, was greater than in Wilson or Pate and the injury to appellant was compensable under the Act as arising out of and in the course of employment. I would reverse the order of the circuit court and reinstate the award of benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to appellant, Nancy Smith.
Reversed.
Lewis, C. J., concurs in result of dissent only.