Mathias v. City of South Daytona
| Decision Date | 21 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 49827,49827 |
| Citation | 350 So.2d 458 |
| Parties | Donald E. MATHIAS, Jr., Petitioner, v. CITY OF SOUTH DAYTONA et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Byron K. Rothert, Coble, McKinnon, Reynolds & Rothert, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Martin J. Mickler, Bullock, Sharp & Childs, Jacksonville, for respondents.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on Petition for Writ of Certiorari upon the transcript of record and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, to review the order of the Industrial Relations Commission and the Court finding no departure from the essential requirements of law, it is ordered that said petition be and the same is hereby denied. See: Scholastic Systems, Inc., et al. vs. LeLoup, et al., 307 So.2d 166 (Fla.1974).
The attorneys for petitioner in the above entitled cause have filed a motion for an order allowing and fixing attorneys' fees for said services in this Court; and upon consideration thereof, it is ordered that said motion be and the same is hereby denied.
I respectfully dissent from denial of the petition for certiorari by the majority of my colleagues. I do so because I believe the Industrial Relations Commission departed from the essential requirements of law in this case. Scholastic Systems, Inc. v. LeLoup, 307 So.2d 166 (Fla.1974).
Petitioner was employed as a police officer by respondent City of South Daytona. While attending a social gathering, held at the home of the chief of police, petitioner injured his back during a softball game. This injury resulted in petitioner's total disability and ultimate discharge by respondent when he was no longer able to perform his former duties.
The parties disagree on whether the social activity was sponsored and financed by respondent. Petitioner asserts that it was, alleging that funds for the party were secured from the operation of vending machines located on the premises of the respondent. Petitioner concedes that employees were not required to attend the party, but maintains that the evidence reflects that they were strongly encouraged to do so. Respondent contends that the vending machines, whose profits funded the party, were owned by the police officers, rather than the department. In addition, it asserts that petitioner was under no direct duty or instruction to attend the function.
The parties apparently agree that petitioner is entitled to Workmen's Compensation if (i) the social gathering falls within the orbit of petitioner's employment or (ii) the employer derives substantial direct benefit from the activity. The Judge of Industrial Claims found the claim to be compensable because the social gathering fell within the orbit of petitioner's employment. She concluded that there was evidence to support the allegation that pressure was brought to bear on petitioner to attend the function. In addition, she found that respondent directly benefited by the increased morale of the employees resulting from participation in such social activities.
In his treatise on Workmen's Compensation law, Professor Arthur Larson postulates that 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.
Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, Vol. 1, § 22.00.
The Judge of Industrial Claims found the existence of both (i) required participation and (ii) substantial benefit on the part of the employer. The Industrial Relations Commission determined that the finding of required participation was not supported by competent substantial evidence and that the Judge of Industrial Claims misapplied the law with respect to the issue of direct employer benefit. I concur with the Industrial Relations Commission as to direct employer benefit because both the evidence and the express findings of the Judge of Industrial Claims support nothing more than a general increase in employee morale resulting from participation in the recreational activities. As Professor Larson states:
Controversy is encountered also when the benefit asserted is the intangible value of increased worker efficiency and morale. Basically, the trouble with this argument is not that such benefits do not result, but that they result from every game the employee plays whether connected with his work or not. In this respect, the argument is reminiscent of the same view sometimes heard in connection with the personal comfort cases: eating, resting, and the like do indeed improve the efficiency of the employee, but this is equally true (and even more true) of the sleeping and eating which he does at home. And so, just as in the sleeping and eating cases some arbitrary time and space limitations must circumscribe the area within which the "benefit" establishes work-connection, the recreation cases must submit to some similar limitation, since otherwise there is no stopping point which can be defined short of complete coverage of all the employee's refreshing social and recreational activities. It can be taken as the distinctly majority view that these morale and efficiency benefits are not alone enough to bring recreation within the course of employment. (Footnotes omitted) Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, Vol. 1, § 22.30.
I depart from a majority of my brothers upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miles v. Montreal Baseball Club
...and to the employer's substantial benefit. See City of Daytona Beach v. Mathias, IRC Order 2-2983 (June 16, 1976), cert. denied, 350 So.2d 458 (Fla.1977). Because of our disposition of this case, we need not address appellant's last point, that the employer waived the statutory exclusion an......