Roberts v. TBAA

• Decision Date: 15 July 2004
• Citation: 371 N.J. Super. 189,852 A.2d 271
• Parties: Karin ROBERTS and John Roberts, Her Husband, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TIMBER BIRCH-BROADMOORE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, d/b/a T.B.A.A., Edward Smith, Paul Mayovich, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

852 A.2d 271

371 N.J. Super. 189

Karin ROBERTS and John Roberts, Her Husband, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.TIMBER BIRCH-BROADMOORE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, d/b/a T.B.A.A., Edward Smith, Paul Mayovich, Defendants-Respondents.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Submitted June 2, 2004.

Decided July 15, 2004.

Grimes & Grimes, Cherry Hill, attorneys for appellants(Patrick J. Grimes, of counsel and on the brief).

Naulty, Scaricamazza & McDevitt, Philadelphia, PA, attorneys for respondents(Gerard X. Smith, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges PRESSLER, CIANCIA and PARKER.The opinion of the court was delivered by PARKER, J.A.D

In this appeal, we consider whether plaintiff, who was injured while attending a three-day soccer tournament sponsored by defendant, Timber Birch-Broadmoore Athletic Association(TBAA), is barred from suit by the charitable immunity statute.

It is undisputed that TBAA is a non-profit organization, "the objective[s], aim[s] and purpose[s][of which] are: a. To aid and assist the youth of this community to become better citizens by making them aware of their responsibilities, b. To teach the meaning of good citizenship, fellowship and sportsmanship, c. To assemble teams and groups for participation in sports and other activities."TBAA hosted a three-day soccer tournament in August 2000 at which a number of vendors were present selling various items from hot dogs to T-shirts.

Plaintiff attended all three days of the tournament with her daughter and son, each of whom played on different teams, and her husband who coached their son's team.She claimed that she attended the tournament as a volunteer to "make sure the equipment gets where it needs to go....[and make] sure all the first-aid equipment was there.If anyone needed anything at the field ... ice packs, bandages, whatever, I'd make sure they got it, make sure that game times were still the same, that nothing had been changed, make sure scores got posted properly...."

In her deposition, plaintiff testified that during the three-day tournament, she spent most of her time watching her daughter's and son's teams play.On August 26, the day of the accident, plaintiff left the playing field with her daughter to get something to eat at a vendor's stand.While she was walking with her daughter, she tripped and fell over a cooler located at one of the stands and injured her shoulder.

Plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment dismissing her complaint, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that her claims were barred by the charitable immunity statute.

"Charitable immunity is an affirmative defense, as to which, like all affirmative defenses, defendants bear the burden of persuasion."Abdallah v. Occupational Ctr. Of Hudson County, Inc.,351 N.J.Super. 280, 288, 798 A.2d 131(App. Div.2002)."[A]n entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it `(1) was formed for non-profit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of the injury to plaintiff who was then a beneficiary of the charitable works.'"Bieker v. Community House of Moorestoum,169 N.J. 167, 175, 777 A.2d 37(2001)(citingHamel v. State,321 N.J.Super. 67, 72, 728 A.2d 264(App.Div.1999)).

[Auerbach v. Jersey Wahoos Swim Club,368 N.J.Super. 403, 410, 846 A.2d 646(App.Div.2004).]

There can be no dispute that TBAA is a non-profit organization.That does not automatically qualify it to invoke the defense of charitable immunity, however.After establishing TBAA's non-profit status, we must then look to whether it is "organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes."Bieker, supra,169 N.J. at 175, 777 A.2d 37.When considering whether a sports organization, such as TBAA, is organized exclusively for educational purposes, we have granted "substantial latitude" in determining the appropriate avenues for achieving their objectives.Bloom v. Seton Hall Univ.,307 N.J.Super. 487, 491, 704 A.2d 1334(App. Div.), certif. denied,153 N.J. 405, 709 A.2d 798(1998).The term "educational" is not limited to purely scholastic activities.Id. at 492, 704 A.2d 1334."Education" has been broadly defined to include numerous activities, ... for example, "good sportsmanship, honesty, loyalty, courage and reverence ... through the teaching and supervision of baseball skills."Pomeroy v. Little League Baseball of Collingswood,142 N.J.Super. 471, 474, 362 A.2d 39(App. Div.1976)."[A] non-profit corporation may be organized for `exclusively educational purposes' even though it provides an educational experience which is `recreational' in nature."Morales v. N.J. Acad. of Aquatic Sciences,302 N.J.Super. 50, 54, 694 A.2d 600(App.Div.1997)(citingPomeroy, supra,142 N.J.Super. at 474, 362 A.2d 39).We are satisfied that TBAA's purpose of teaching and promoting good citizenship and sportsmanship and assembling teams and groups for participation in sports qualifies it as a non-profit organization within the scope of the charitable immunity statute.

Defendant contends that it was engaged in its stated goals at the time of plaintiff's alleged accident.Plaintiff argues, however, that the operation of concession stands at the tournament was not integral to TBAA's non-profit "works," and charitable immunity does not apply to injuries involving the concessionaires.

We have previously held "that N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 was not intended to immunize eleemosynary organizations from claims by fee-paying nonmembers arising from commercial activities geared to generate profit for the organization's charitable purposes."Kasten v. YMCA,173 N.J.Super. 1, 7, 412 A.2d 1346(App. Div.1980).Thus, a fee-paying non-member plaintiff injured at a ski area operated by the YMCA could pursue her tort claim against the YMCA.Ibid.Similarly, a non-congregation member attending a bingo game at a synagogue could pursue her claim for injuries incurred when a table at which she was sitting collapsed.Book v. Aguth Achim Anchai of Freehold,101 N.J.Super. 559, 563-64, 245 A.2d 51(App. Div.1968).

When a non-profit organization undertakes an activity ancillary to its stated charitable purpose, the related function is subject to charitable immunity if the ancillary function is integral to the charitable purpose.Bieker, supra,169 N.J. at 178,777 A.2d 37;Rupp v. Brookdale Baptist Church,242 N.J.Super. 457, 459-61, 577 A.2d 188(App.Div.1990)(holding that a church-run day camp that "integrate[d] biblical truth into the lives of children through formal and informal activities such as crafts and games" was subject to charitable immunity).Here, the concessions operated during the three-day soccer tournament were integral to TBAA's non-profit goals of education and promotion of sportsmanship in children.Whether TBAA operated the concessions itself or allowed vendors to do so for a fee is of no consequence to TBAA's defense of charitable immunity.Lax v. Princeton University,343 N.J.Super. 568, 571, 779 A.2d 449(App.Div.2001)(holding that rental of the university's auditorium for concerts was integral to the university's educational purposes and, therefore, subject to charitable immunity).As an integral part of the tournament, the operation of the concessions falls within TBAA's charitable immunity.

Charitable immunity may not apply, however, if plaintiff was a contributor to the organization rather than a beneficiary by virtue of her volunteer activities at the tournament.Plaintiff maintains that she was not a beneficiary of TBAA because neither she nor her family were members of the association, andshe was present as a volunteer, contributing her services, rather than receiving benefits from the organization.The fact that plaintiff and her family were not members of TBAA does not mean they did not benefit from TBAA's non-profit works.Hosting the tournament was consistent with TBAA's stated goals, and we have no difficulty concluding that a non-member can be a beneficiary of the non-profit works of an educational entity.

The case law addressing this issue distinguishes between persons benefiting from the charity and those contributing to it by virtue of their attendance or participation.The defense of charitable immunity is available in those cases where the injured party is a beneficiary of the defendant's charitable works, Ryan v. Holy Trinity,175 N.J. 333, 354, 815 A.2d 419(2003);Auerbach v. Jersey Wahoos Swim Club,368 N.J.Super. 403, 415, 846 A.2d 646(App.Div.2004); or accompanies a beneficiary to the event, Bieker, supra,169 N.J. at 180, 777 A.2d 37.In cases where the plaintiff was a contributor to the charity or charitable event by his or her attendance or participation, the defense of charitable immunity is not...