Sarzillo v. Turner Const. Co.

Decision Date26 November 1985
Citation101 N.J. 114,501 A.2d 135
PartiesRobert C. SARZILLO, Petitioner-Respondent, v. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Respondent-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Thomas E. Miller, Roseland, argued the cause for appellant (Robert G. Bressler, Roseland, atty.).

John R. Lanza, Flemington, argued the cause for respondent (Thatcher & Lanza, Flemington, attys.).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

GARIBALDI, J.

The Workers' Compensation Law, N.J.S.A. 34:15-7, as amended effective January 10, 1980, bars workers' compensation for an injury suffered in recreational or social activities, unless such activities "are a regular incident of employment and produce a benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale...." We must determine whether the injury suffered by petitioner in a lunchtime recreational activity is compensable under this law.

I

At the time of the accident, petitioner, Robert Sarzillo, was employed by respondent, Turner Construction Co., as a journeyman-carpenter at a construction site in Bedminster Township. His working hours were from 8:00 a.m. to 3:20 p.m., with a paid lunch break from 11:50 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Approximately 1,500 feet from the area where Sarzillo was working, there was a food trailer (not owned by Turner) where employees could buy sandwiches and sodas. The nearest restaurant was two miles from the site. Sarzillo testified that he always brought his own lunch on this job. On the day of the accident, Sarzillo and three of his co-workers were eating lunch in the basement of the building in which they were working. The employees were allowed to eat at their job locations.

For the three months he was at the job site, Sarzillo and some of his co-workers played "Ka-nocka" 12 or 15 times during their lunch break. Ka-nocka is a paddle game similar to tennis, played with wooden paddles and a rubber ball. No equipment was furnished by Turner. Sarzillo and his co-workers brought the paddles and the ball. Sarzillo testified that his foreman had seen the game played and had not objected to it.

During his lunch break on April 20, 1982, Sarzillo played Ka-nocka. When reaching down to hit the ball, he slipped and ruptured an Achilles' tendon. The Judge of Compensation concluded that petitioner's recreational injury was compensable, finding that:

[He] was, in effect, required to eat his lunch at the job site, since he would have been unable to leave the job site to go to a restaurant and return in time to resume work at the required time.... The fact is that any construction workers have to get along with each other and are entitled to have some physical exercise as well as food during their breaks and including the lunch break; that the respondent condoned this activity and never ordered these employees to cease....

The Appellate Division, 198 N.J.Super. 29, 31, 486 A.2d 349 (App.Div. 1984), affirmed the judge's findings as being reasonably reached on substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. The court further held that the facts fully supported the conclusion that the Ka-nocka game satisfied both criteria of the statutory exception: one, it was a recurrent lunchtime recreational activity, and as such, a regular incident of employment, and two, it produced a special benefit to the employer in that the employees, by remaining at the job site during lunch, did not travel to a restaurant, thereby risking returning late. Id.

We granted respondent's petition for certification, 100 N.J. --- (1985), and now reverse. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that neither of the conditions set forth in N.J.S.A 34:15-7 has been satisfied. Hence, Sarzillo's injury is not compensable.

II

The original Workmen's Compensation Act, enacted in 1911, provided (with exceptions not relevant here) that compensation shall be paid for injuries or death by accident "arising out of and in the course of [the] employment...." L. 1911, c. 95. Prior to the amendment of N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 in 1979, there was no specific statutory provision dealing with employee injuries arising from recreational or social activities. The leading New Jersey cases addressing the issue whether such injuries were compensable were Tocci v. Tessler & Weiss, Inc., 28 N.J. 582, 147 A.2d 783 (1959), and Complitano v. Steel & Alloy Tank Co., 34 N.J. 300, 168 A.2d 809 (1961), rev'g on dissenting opinion below, 63 N.J.Super. 444, 456, 164 A.2d 792 (App.Div.1960) (Conford, J.A.D., dissenting).

In those cases, this Court in carrying out the "prescribed liberal construction" of the Act, Tocci, 28 N.J. at 593, 164 A.2d 792, substantially expanded coverage for injuries sustained by employees while engaged in recreational and social activities. Tocci did so primarily through broadly conceiving the indicia of "a regular incident and condition of the employment." 1 Prior to Complitano the mutual-benefit doctrine had been applied primarily where the employer explicitly had encouraged the employee to attend the social or recreational events. 2 Complitano expanded the doctrine to encompass as the basic inquiry "whether the employer's participation in or contribution to the arrangements for the recreation is such that it is reasonably inferable that a benefit was expected therefrom, such as company advertising, or betterment of employer-employee relations, rather than that it was motivated solely by altruistic beneficence toward the employees." 63 N.J.Super. at 463, 168 A.2d 809.

The amended Workers' Compensation Act reads in pertinent part:

When employer and employee shall by agreement, either express or implied, ... accept the provisions of this article compensation for personal injuries to ... such employee by accident arising out of and in the course of employment shall be made by the employer without regard to the negligence of the employer, ... in all cases except ... when recreational or social activities, unless such recreational or social activities are a regular incident of employment and produce a benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale, are the natural and proximate cause of the injury.

[L. 1979, c. 283 (emphasis added).]

The italicized portion of the statute was enacted as a part of extensive amendments that became effective January 10, 1980. Although through the years there have been many changes in the Act, the 1979 amendments "represent the most comprehensive reforms in the history of New Jersey's workers' compensation laws." Kumpf, "Occupational Disease Claims Under the Workers' Compensation Reforms," 12 Seton Hall L.Rev. 470, 470 (1982) (quoted in Perez v. Pantasote, Inc., 95 N.J. 105, 111, 469 A.2d 22 (1984)). The dominant purpose of the 1979 revision as a whole is to "make available additional dollars for benefits to seriously disabled workers while eliminating, clarifying or tightening awards of compensation based upon minor permanent partial disabilities not related to the employment," as well as to contain the overall cost of workers' compensation. N.J. Senate Labor, Industry, and Professions Committee, Joint Statement to Senate Committee Substitute for N.J. Senate No. 802 and Assembly Committee Substitute for N.J. Assembly No. 840 (Nov. 13, 1979) (hereinafter Joint Statement); Perez, 95 N.J. at 114, 469 A.2d 22. The Joint Statement listed nine ways that the legislation would aid employers by limiting costs; included therein was to exclude "most injuries sustained during recreational or social activities." Poswiatowski v. Standard Chlorine Chemical Co., 96 N.J. 321, 331 n.2, 475 A. 1257 n. 2 (1984).

Both the letter and spirit of the amended Act tighten the general criteria for compensation (arising out of and in the course of employment). The plain language of the amendment discontinues the "sweeping generality" of the original statute, Tocci, 28 N.J. at 587, 164 A.2d 792, by adding a specific exception with two specific criteria--that injuries or death sustained through recreational or social activities are not compensable, unless such activities (1) are a regular incident of employment and (2) produce a benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale.

By specifically excepting improvements in an employee's health and morale from being a sufficient benefit to an employer to satisfy the general criteria, the Legislature laid to rest the mutual benefit doctrine relied on in part by this Court in Tocci and Complitano in drawing the line between injuries arising out of and in the course of the employment and those unrelated to the employment. See Dowson v. Borough of Lodi, 200 N.J.Super. 116, 121, 490 A.2d 374 (App.Div.1985).

In what way the amended statute tightens the general criteria by explicitly requiring that the recreational or social activities be "a regular incident of employment" is less clear. Sponsorship itself typically had been regarded as an indication that the activities were a regular incident of employment. Yet, the Joint Statement declares "injuries sustained during recreational or social activities sponsored by the employer to be noncompensable unless such activities are a regular part of the employment." (Emphasis added.) This is the extent of the legislative history with respect to this amendment. 3

Nevertheless, considering the dominant purpose of the 1979 revision and the language of this amendment, we conclude that the Legislature intended that both specific criteria be construed as effecting a substantial change from prior practice.

III

We are mindful that the Workers' Compensation Act generally is to be construed liberally to compensate workers for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. But there is no gainsaying that through its amendment of N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 the Legislature intended to tighten, clarify, or eliminate the availability of workers' compensation for injuries sustained during recreational or social activities. We hold...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Quinones v. P.C. Richard & Son
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • March 24, 1998
    ...or planned activities occurring during the lunch hour, coffee breaks, recreational periods or outings. Sarzillo v. Turner Constr. Co., 101 N.J. 114, 117-21, 501 A.2d 135 (1985). See also Cotton v. Worthington Corp., 192 N.J.Super. 467, 468-69, 471 A.2d 56 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 96 N.J.......
  • Sheerer v. Bath Iron Works Corp.
    • United States
    • Longshore Complaints Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 2001
    ...language in these jurisdictions which explicitly excludes or limits coverage for employees engaged in voluntary recreational activities. Id. The Act contains no such limiting provision therefore does not rule out, per se, injuries that have occurred during recreational activities. 33 U.S.C.......
  • Cellucci v. Bronstein
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • December 6, 1994
    ...of employment and produces a benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale. See Sarzillo v. Turner Constr. Co., 101 N.J. 114, 119, 501 A.2d 135 (1985). It is undisputed Mr. Cellucci authorized Carlo to participate in swimming as part of the picnic day employment. ......
  • Goulding v. NJ Friendship House, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • February 8, 2021
    ...on our decisions in Lozano v. Frank DeLuca Construction, 178 N.J. 513, 842 A.2d 156 (2004), and Sarzillo v. Turner Construction Co., 101 N.J. 114, 501 A.2d 135 (1985), Friendship House argues Goulding has not satisfied the two-part exception of N.J.S.A. 34:15-7. On the first prong, Friendsh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT