Beauchesne v. David London & Co.
1977 R.I. LEXIS 1505, 118 R.I. 651, 375 A.2d 920 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained by an employee at an employer-sponsored social event is compensable under workers' compensation if there is a sufficient nexus between the injury and employment, considering factors such as customary nature, employer encouragement/subsidization, management, compulsion, and employer benefit. Furthermore, a statutory intoxication defense is not an absolute bar to recovery where the employer condoned or authorized the drinking.
Facts:
- In February 1974, Beauchesne began working part-time for David London & Co., a family corporation selling burlap bags and reconditioned barrels, and transitioned to full-time employment upon graduating high school at 18 years old.
- On December 24, 1974, Beauchesne attended the company's annual Christmas party, held in the company's third-floor offices, where the company supplied pizza, soda, beer, and whiskey.
- Work was put aside around 2:30 p.m. for the festivities, and employees were told they could attend or leave but would be paid for a full day; all five employees and the London brothers (management) attended, and employees received a $10 bonus at the party.
- Beauchesne became intoxicated at the party, and sometime after 4 p.m., he fell from a third-floor window.
- As a result of the fall, Beauchesne suffered a fractured skull, fractured cervical spine, and severe damage to his left knee area, which ultimately required above-knee amputation of his left leg.
Procedural Posture:
- Beauchesne filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits in early February 1975.
- A hearing began before a trial commissioner in late April 1975 and continued over three additional occasions, concluding on August 5, 1975.
- The trial commissioner issued a decision approximately 10 months after the hearing concluded, finding that Beauchesne's injuries occurred "in the employment of the [company], connected therewith and referable thereto" and that he was totally incapacitated.
- The full Workmen’s Compensation Commission affirmed the trial commissioner's findings approximately 9 months after the trial commissioner's decision.
- David London & Co. (the employer/company) appealed the full commission's decree to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does an injury sustained by an employee at an employer-sponsored Christmas party, where the employer provides alcohol and pays employees for attendance, occur 'in the course of employment' for workers' compensation purposes? 2. Does an employee's intoxication automatically bar recovery for such an injury if the employer authorized or condoned the drinking?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelleher, J.
Yes, an injury sustained by an employee at an employer-sponsored Christmas party, where the employer provides alcohol and pays employees for attendance, occurs 'in the course of employment' for workers' compensation purposes, and no, an employee's intoxication does not automatically bar recovery for such an injury if the employer authorized or condoned the drinking. The court found a sufficient 'nexus' between Beauchesne's injuries and his employment by applying the five factors from Moore’s Case: the party was customary, fully subsidized by the employer, managed by the employer, implicitly compelled employee attendance (given payment for the day and bonus distribution), and provided a benefit to the employer (promoting good will, better service, and potential tax deductions). The party was held in the workplace during work hours for which employees were paid, further linking it to employment. Regarding the intoxication defense, the court rejected the argument that G.L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §28-33-2, which disallows compensation for injuries resulting from intoxication 'while on duty,' acts as an absolute bar. Instead, it adopted the reasoning that an employer who permits the use of alcohol at an employment-related social activity is estopped from raising intoxication as a defense. The court also rejected the company's argument that the significant time lag in the commission's decision-making process voided the award, finding that the statutory timeframes were directory, not mandatory, and the company had other avenues to compel a faster decision or seek review.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of 'in the course of employment' for workers' compensation purposes to include employer-sponsored social events, particularly when the employer maintains a degree of control, offers incentives, and derives a benefit. It also sets an important precedent by limiting the intoxication defense when the employer has authorized or condoned the alcohol consumption, effectively shifting some risk onto the employer in such scenarios. Future cases will likely rely on the 'Moore's Case' factors to determine the employment nexus and on the estoppel principle regarding intoxication, requiring employers to be more cautious about the provision of alcohol at company events.
