Recreational
Activities
Author: James M. Voelker
Are accidental
injuries that occur during work related recreational activities compensable?
General
Principals of Law
Section 11 of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act states:
Accidental injuries incurred
while participating in voluntary recreational programs including but
not limited to athletic events, parties and picnics do not arise out
of and in the course of the employment even though the employer pays
some or all of the cost thereof. This exclusion shall not apply in the
event that the injured employee was ordered or assigned by his employer
to participate in the program.
In Gourley v. Industrial Comm'n, 84 Ill.
2d 303 (1981), the Illinois Supreme Court adopted the analysis of Professor
Larson and set forth three circumstances under which such cases will
be found compensable:
- The injury occurs on the premises
during a lunch or recreation period as a regular incident of the employment;
or
- 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
- 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.
The Court discussed several factors to be considered in addressing
compensability: employer financing of the activity, employer compulsion
to participate, evidence of substantial company benefit, uniforms with
the company name or logo, presence of "outsiders" on the team,
paid time off to practice or play games, attendance of other employees
at games, employer provided equipment, location of games on company
property, relationship of the employer's business to the activity, discussion
of the team in company newspapers or other media, and encouragement
by managers for employees to participate. Citing 1A A. Larson, Workmens'
Compensation sec. 22, at 5-71 (1979).
Specific
Cases
Motorcycle
Accident During Company Picnic Compensable
Claimant was injured during a company picnic while riding a motorcycle
provided for the amusement of employees. The court held that the picnic
activities fell within section 11 of the Act. Although attendance was
not mandatory, petitioner was told, "that it would serve his career
very well if he attended the function." The purpose of the picnic
was to enhance the relationship between field engineers and their sales
counterparts. There was no dispute that business was discussed at the
picnic. Auto-Trol Technology Corporation v. Industrial
Comm'n, 189 Ill. App. 3d 1065 (1st Dist. 1989).
Claim
by Volunteer Fireman Injured in Water Fight Not Compensable
Claimant, a volunteer fireman employed by the Cary Fire Protection District,
filed a claim for benefits against the District after he was injured
while participating in a "water fight" sponsored by the Cary
Fireman's Association. The arbitrator awarded benefits. The Industrial
Commission reversed the decision of the arbitrator. The Appellate Court
affirmed the decision of the Commission and denied benefits. Although
the event was sponsored by the employer and was a good moral booster,
claimant admitted that his role was purely voluntary and he was never
ordered or compelled to participate in the water fighting tournaments.
Thus, the activity was not compensable under section 11 of the Act.
Cary Fire Protection District v. Industrial Comm'n,
211 I. App. Ed 20 (2nd Dist. 1991).
Fatal
Heart Attack During Tennis Tournament Denied
Decedent suffered a fatal heart attack while participating in a tennis
round-robin tournament conducted for the purpose of selecting a tennis
team to represent the respondent corporation in a national invitational
championship named "Holiday Inn 1983 Corporate Invitational."
Tournament winners would receive trophies and an all-expense paid vacation
and Holiday Inn would make a special donation to the Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation in the name of the winning corporation. The arbitrator awarded
compensation. On review, the Industrial Commission denied benefits,
finding that petitioners failed to prove that decedent suffered fatal
accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment
because the conduct giving rise to the death was voluntarily undertaken
by decedent. The Appellate Court affirmed the Industrial Commission.
The petitioners concede the participation by the decedent in the tennis
program was voluntary. Nevertheless, they argued that the program was
not a recreational activity. Rather, they contend it was a promotional
activity that inured to the benefit of the employer. It was particularly
notable that the respondent paid petitioner's wages and expenses for
the tournament. The court held that the event fell under section 11
of the Act because it was an "athletic event". Thus, the death
was not compensable. Kozak v. Industrial Comm'n, 219 Ill. App. 3d 629 (1st
Dist. 1991).
Injury
During Company Basketball Game Compensable
Claimant had played basketball at Southern Illinois University for four
years prior to becoming employed with respondent. Claimant was approached
by an employee of respondent, who told claimant that talented basketball
players were hired by the employer as bus drivers. Subsequently, claimant
was hired as a bus driver for the employer at the Kedzie Bus Station
in Chicago. Claimant testified that the number of hours he worked each
week depended on the number of games the team had. Accommodation for
the basketball team was the only time claimant's schedule was adjusted.
Claimant stated that the employer paid claimant for the days that he
did not drive the bus and was instead playing basketball. The uniforms
the team wore were supplied by the employer and were given to the players
at work. The employer actively organized and ran the league. The Appellate
Court held that because petitioner was hired and recruited because of
his basketball skills, he was essentially assigned to the team. Thus,
the activity was "ordered or assigned" under section 11 of
the Act making the injury compensable. Chicago
Transit Authority v. Industrial Comm'n, 238 Ill. App. 3d 224
(1st Dist. 1992).
Injury
During Company Basketball Game Not Compensable
Claimant was employed as a correctional officer with the Cook county
sheriff's department for five years prior to his accident. He was a
member of the basketball team sponsored by the sheriff's department
for two of those years. He worked the same schedule during basketball
season and was paid for any time he spent playing in games. If his schedule
conflicted with the basketball games, he would work fewer hours at his
correctional officer duties. Claimant conceded that he was never asked
by his immediate supervisor to play on the team, was never told he had
to play on the team, and was never informed that something untoward
would happen if he did not play on the team. The court stated that while
there is certainly evidence of control and there is no serious dispute
that the employer may have received some intangible benefit by sponsoring
the team, this alone is insufficient to render the injury compensable.
Kozak v. Industrial Comm'n, 219 Ill. App. 3d 629 at 632 (1st
Dist. 1991). In reversing the Industrial Commission, the court stated
that the facts were readily distinguishable from the situation presented
in Chicago Transit Authority v. Industrial Comm'n, 238 Ill. App. 3d
224 (1st Dist. 1992), where the evidence supported the conclusion
that the employee was expressly recruited and hired by transit authority
personnel to play basketball although he was nominally an employee of
the authority. In this case, there was no such evidence, and nothing
to indicate that personnel from the sheriff's department actively solicited
claimant to play on the team, much less that he was ordered or assigned
to do so. Pickett v. Industrial Comm'n,
252 Ill. App. 3d 355 (1st Dist. 1993).
Traveling
Employee Injured in Recreational Activity Not Subject to Section 11
Claimant was employed by Bagcraft Corporation. Claimant and several
co-employees were invited by Rhinelander, one of the Bagcraft's clients,
to visit its facility on an over night trip. Rhinelander gave the employees
a tour of the mill. After the tour, the parties met and discussed general
business and quality issues. When the meetings concluded, Rhinelander
drove the Bagcraft employees to its lodge, where they spent the remainder
of the afternoon and evening. At the lodge, Bagcraft employees and a
couple of Rhinelander's sales people participated in a wide range of
recreational activities together, including trapshooting, riding all-terrain
vehicles (ATVs), fishing, walking, and hiking. The Bagcraft employees
were also free to simply sit around or play pool at the lodge. These
activities were available in preceding years and were described in a
folder of information that Rhinelander gave the Bagcraft employees before
reaching the lodge. Decedent decided to go for an ATV ride. While riding
back to the lodge, decedent unexpectedly flew over the handlebars of
the ATV and struck a tree. He suffered a severe head injury and died
shortly after reaching the hospital. Respondent argued that claimant's
injury fell under section 11 of the Act and was not compensable. The
Appellate court held that claimant was a traveling employee. Thus, his
claim was not subject to section 11 of the Act. The sole issue was whether
his conduct was reasonable and anticipated by Bagcraft. There is nothing
to suggest that decedent's conduct was unreasonable at the time of the
accident; nor could it be said that riding an ATV is unreasonable per
se. As to the "anticipated" prong, the evidence showed
that Bagcraft knew or should have known that ATV riding was among the
recreational options at the Rhinelander lodge. Thus, the claim was compensable.
Bagcraft Corporation v. Industrial Comm'n,
302 Ill. App. 3d 334 (3rd Dist. 1998) full
text...
