{ "id": 8547082, "name": "HENRY M. CHILTON, Employee, Plaintiff Appellee v. BOWMAN GRAY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, Employer and MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier", "name_abbreviation": "Chilton v. Bowman Gray School of Medicine", "decision_date": "1980-02-05", "docket_number": "No. 7910IC417", "first_page": "13", "last_page": "18", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "45 N.C. App. 13" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 837", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8604092 ], "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 S.E. 2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599781 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0303-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 Minn. 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 308872 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/286/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 A. 2d 521", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 Pa. Commw. Ct. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Commw.", "case_ids": [ 1871599 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-commw/22/0020-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 653, "char_count": 12104, "ocr_confidence": 0.832, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1163073455414943e-07, "percentile": 0.7639383608851327 }, "sha256": "62212159dcb39279aa31143c92a280f317a2db2666b1fcb448a10591207361e6", "simhash": "1:17c00fc3d6e25f5f", "word_count": 1977 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:38.339487+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge PARKER concur." ], "parties": [ "HENRY M. CHILTON, Employee, Plaintiff Appellee v. BOWMAN GRAY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, Employer and MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HILL, Judge.\nBy their first three assignments of error, defendants contend that the Industrial Commission erred in ruling \u201c. . . (a) [t]hat the picnic and attendant activities, in the course of which plaintiff was injured, furthered his employer\u2019s interests, and (b) [t]hat the plaintiff\u2019s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.\u201d\nThis case presents a situation which is increasingly appearing in litigation. Employers sponsor or encourage a recreational acitivity during which an employee is injured, and the employee seeks workmen\u2019s compensation. While it is clear that recovery will be allowed when attendance is required, the question becomes closer when the degree of employer involvement descends to mere sponsorship or encouragement. 1A Larson, Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law \u00a7 22.23, p. 5-85. The difference between an award or denial of compensation is more in the strength of the fact situation presented than in the tests and rules applied. Larson, at p. 5-89.\nSeveral questions should be considered in determining whether compensation will be awarded:\n(1) Did the employer in fact sponsor the event?\n(2) To what extent was attendance really voluntary?\n(3) Was there some degree of encouragement to attend evidenced by such factors as:\na. taking a record of attendance;\nb. paying for the time spent;\nc. requiring the employee to work if he did not attend; or\nd. maintaining a known custom of attending?\n(4) Did the employer finance the occasion to a substantial extent?\n(5) Did the employees regard it as an employment benefit to which they were entitled as of right?\n(6) Did the employer benefit from the event, not merely in a vague way through better morale and good will, but through such tangible advantages as having an opportunity to make speeches and awards? Larson, at p. 5-85.\nWe find that these questions are helpful in establishing a structural analysis of when to award compensation.\nDespite this structure, courts from other jurisdictions have taken fact situations similar to the one in this case, applied an analysis similar to the one set forth above and reached conflicting results. In Feaster v. S. K. Kelso and Sons, 22 Pa. Commw. Ct. 20, 347 A. 2d 521 (1975), an employee drowned while attending the employer\u2019s picnic, which it sponsored as an annual custom. The picnic was announced by means of a poster; the food was supplied by employer \u2014 the employees incurring no expense. There was no organized program of activity, and no speeches were given. Employee attended purely on a voluntary basis. The Pennsylvania court ruled that the purpose of the picnic was to promote the employer\u2019s interest in good relationships with its employees, and thus the employee died while engaged in the furtherance of the business of his employer.\nHowever, see Ethen v. Franklin Manufacturing Company, 286 Minn. 371, 176 N.W. 2d 72 (1970), where the court takes similar facts and arrives at a contrary result. There, employee was asked by his foreman to take part in a tug-of-war at a company-sponsored picnic. Attendance was voluntary, and about half of the company\u2019s employees attended. The tug-of-war was cancelled. In order to reach another part of the picnic site to \u201csocialize,\u201d employee jumped on the running board of a truck, slipped, and fell under the truck, injuring his back. The court found that the picnic was sponsored and financed by employer; attendance was encouraged but voluntary; no record of attendance was taken; no speeches were made or awards presented; and the event was not held on a workday. Contrary to the Pennsylvania court, the Ethen court denied workmen\u2019s compensation, stating there was no . . substantial benefit to the employer which would warrant an award of compensation.\u201d Ethen, at p. 74.\nNorth Carolina case law illustrates this State\u2019s reluctance to grant recovery in a situation such as this. In Berry v. Furniture Co., 232 N.C. 303, 60 S.E. 2d 97 (1950), as a matter of good will, employer gave a fishing trip at its expense to its employees at year\u2019s end. Several employees and the manager of the furniture company boarded a company truck one Saturday evening, drove to Morehead City, and camped in the truck for the night. Sunday morning, while driving from Morehead City to Beaufort, the truck ran over a rough place in the road, and employee fell out. As a result, employee suffered head and bodily injuries. The court held that, \u201c. . . it is obvious that the outing, or fishing trip, \u2018after the store had closed for the day\u2019s work\u2019 on Saturday, is not incidental to claimant\u2019s employment. And there is no causal relation between an injury by accident suffered while on such outing and the employment.\u201d Berry, at p. 306.\nIn Barber v. Minges, 223 N.C. 213, 25 S.E. 2d 837 (1943), employee was injured while on a fishing trip. Employer, a soft drink bottler, customarily provided an annual outing for employees and their families for the purpose of promoting good will. Employee attended and was fatally burned when the boat in which he was riding exploded and caught fire. The Court pointed out that,\nThe outing sponsored by the employers in the case at bar occurred on Sunday \u2014 (citation omitted) \u2014 the employee was not paid for attendance, nor penalized for non-attendance, nor ordered to go, but was merely invited. He did no work and there is no suggestion that on this occasion he was under the control and direction of the employer in any respect .... It seems a necessary conclusion that the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act has no relation to the circumstances of his case.\nBarber, at pp. 219-220.\nIn situations where there is an injury at an employer-sponsored recreational event, courts throughout the country have either adopted Professor Larson\u2019s system of analysis or addressed the same issues that he finds determinative in deciding whether to grant recovery under workmen\u2019s compensation laws. We choose to follow that system of analysis and hold that Dr. Chilton should not recover.\nFirst, it is not clear that the radiology department sponsored the picnic. The notice did not appear on department stationery. No invitation came expressly from the head of the department. The event seems to be a self-perpetuating one that occurs each year more because of tradition than from any initiative taken by the department head. Furthermore, sponsorship standing by itself would not indicate coverage.\nSecond, attendance was voluntary. There was testimony from faculty members that they felt they should go, but that they were not compelled to do so. The estimated attendance of around 80% of the department indicates that there was no compulsion.\nThird, no record of attendance was taken. The participants were not paid for the time spent, nor was any employee required to work at the medical school if he did not attend.\nFourth, the picnic, while certainly an annual custom, was not an event that employee regarded as being a benefit to which he was entitled as a matter of right.\nFinally, the radiology department did not utilize the picnic as an opportunity to give a \u201cpep\u201d talk or grant awards.\nPlaintiff maintains that the event served a larger purpose than just increasing employee good will, in that the faculty was able to meet their new colleagues and students before they started their rotations through the department. This personal contact is vague and unmeasurable as a benefit to the employer.\nAdmittedly, the business of a medical school is to teach. Personal camaraderie and respect between the faculty and students involved in professional education greatly enhance the educational experience. We cannot say that this vague benefit transforms an annual social occasion into a business meeting.\nThe second argument in defendants\u2019 brief asserts that the Industrial Commission erred in ruling that plaintiff\u2019s failure to give written notice pursuant to G.S. 97-22 does not bar his claim. We find no error in the Commission\u2019s ruling. Several members of the medical school faculty had personal knowledge of plaintiff\u2019s injury the second it happened. There is evidence that the dean of the school knew of plaintiff\u2019s injury. Defendants were not prejudiced by plaintiff\u2019s failure to file a written claim within the time set forth in G.S. 97-22.\nWe reverse the Order and Award made by the Full Commission and remand the case to the Full Commission affirming entry of an order in accordance with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nChief Judge MORRIS and Judge PARKER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HILL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Craige, Brawley, Liipfert & Ross, by F. Kevin Mauney, for plaintiff appellee.", "Hutchins, Tyndall, Bell, Davis & Pitt, by Richard Tyndall and Richard V. Bennett, for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HENRY M. CHILTON, Employee, Plaintiff Appellee v. BOWMAN GRAY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, Employer and MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier\nNo. 7910IC417\n(Filed 5 February 1980)\n1. Master and Servant \u00a7 60.4\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 injury at picnic \u2014 no coverage\nPlaintiff was not entitled to workmen\u2019s compensation for a broken ankle suffered while playing volleyball at an annual picnic for faculty members and new residents in the radiology department of defendant school, since it was not clear that the radiology department did in fact sponsor the picnic; attendance at the picnic was voluntary; no record of attendance was taken; participants were not paid for the time spent, nor was any employee required to work at the medical school if he did not attend; the picnic, though an annual custom, was not an event that plaintiff employee regarded as a benefit to which he was entitled as a matter of right; and the radiology department did not utilize the picnic as an opportunity to give a \u201cpep\u201d talk or grant awards.\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 90\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 notice to employer of accident\nThe Industrial Commission properly ruled that plaintiff\u2019s failure to give written notice pursuant to G.S. 97-22 did not bar his claim to workmen\u2019s compensation, since several members of defendant\u2019s faculty had personal knowledge of plaintiffs injury the second it happened, and there was evidence that the dean of defendant school knew of plaintiff\u2019s injury.\nAppeal by defendant from Order of the North Carolina Industrial Commission entered 5 February 1979. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 December 1979.\nDr.. Henry Chilton suffered a compound fracture dislocation of his right ankle and lateral malleolus on 5 August 1976. Plaintiff is an instructor of nuclear medicine in the radiology department of the Bowman Gray School of Medicine and was attending a picnic organized each year by the faculty of the department. The doctor was playing volleyball when his right ankle twisted and a break resulted.\nTestimony before the Industrial Commission tended to show that the picnic was held so that members of the department faculty and the new residents could become acquainted. One of the faculty members stated that he found the picnic to be valuable, because he liked to meet the residents before their instruction began. Another professor testified that the radiology department has a large number of people, is spread out geographically and that it sometimes takes a year or two for residents to rotate through sections of the department. For those reasons, it is valuable to meet new residents at the annual picnic.\nThe picnic has been held for several years at Tanglewood Park. Invitations to the picnic are on \u201clittle slips of paper\u201d and sent through interoffice mail. The radiology department pays for the picnic shelter and beverages and provides passes allowing free entrance into the park. Senior faculty members provide the food. Members of the faculty testified that they felt that they should go to the picnic, although there was no direct pressure to attend. The Industrial Commission found as fact that between 75% and 80% of the personnel were in attendance the day of Dr. Chilton\u2019s injury.\nThe deputy commissioner issued an order denying an award, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. On appeal, the Full Commission reversed the order of the deputy commissioner and made an award. The defendants appealed.\nCraige, Brawley, Liipfert & Ross, by F. Kevin Mauney, for plaintiff appellee.\nHutchins, Tyndall, Bell, Davis & Pitt, by Richard Tyndall and Richard V. Bennett, for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0013-01", "first_page_order": 41, "last_page_order": 46 }