United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Industrial Accident Commission
342 P.2d 41, 1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 1925, 172 Cal. App. 2d 73 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained by an employee during a voluntary, off-premises company social event or athletic activity is generally not compensable under workers' compensation unless the employer expressly or impliedly required participation, derived substantial direct benefit, or the activity was a contemplated part of employment.
Facts:
- United Parcel Service of America (United) employed Byington as a delivery truck driver.
- United held an annual company picnic on a Sunday, a non-workday, at a rented park area not on United's premises.
- United employees, including Byington, were not paid for attending the picnic and faced no penalty for non-attendance.
- United did not provide transportation to the picnic, nor did the picnic feature uniforms or advertise United's service.
- United invited employees and their families to the picnic through a company newspaper announcement and supervisor direction, detailing various activities like games and contests.
- Byington sustained an injury to his right foot while participating in a foot race at the company picnic.
Procedural Posture:
- Byington, an employee of United Parcel Service of America, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits.
- The Industrial Accident Commission awarded Byington workers' compensation benefits, finding his injury arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment.
- United Parcel Service of America, as petitioners, sought judicial review and annulment of the Commission's award from the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury sustained by an employee while participating in a foot race at a voluntary, off-premises company picnic, where attendance was not paid or penalized, arise out of and occur in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Nourse, J. pro tem.
No, an injury sustained by an employee while participating in a foot race at a voluntary, off-premises company picnic, where attendance was not paid or penalized, does not arise out of and occur in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes. The court reasoned that liability for workers' compensation exists only when an injury occurs while an employee is performing a service incidental to and in the course of employment, proximately caused by the employment (Lab. Code, § 3600). An injury from an athletic contest is compensable only under specific circumstances: if it occurs on employer premises during a regular recreation period, if participation was required, if the employer derived a substantial direct benefit beyond general morale, or if the activity was contemplated by the employment contract as part of the consideration. In Byington's case, none of these elements were met. There was no evidence of substantial direct employer benefit (such as advertising or business furtherance), no compulsion to attend, and the opportunity to attend was not part of his employment contract. The court distinguished this case from precedents like Reinert (where recreation was part of compensation), Winter (where it was an established custom at work), and Boynton (where attendance at a banquet directly benefited the employer's sales program), noting that Byington's foot race was off-premises, not customary, and the risk was unrelated to his employment duties. Therefore, the Industrial Accident Commission's finding lacked evidentiary support, and its award must be annulled.
Analysis:
This case establishes a strict interpretation of "arising out of and in the course of employment" for workers' compensation claims involving voluntary, off-premises company social events. It clarifies that merely inviting employees to an event, even with company sponsorship, is insufficient to make resulting injuries compensable unless the activity directly benefits the employer's business, is a condition of employment, or occurs on premises as a regular incident. The ruling limits employer liability for purely recreational activities and places a high burden on employees to demonstrate a clear link between such activities and their employment duties for compensation purposes. Future cases will likely scrutinize the directness of employer benefit and the degree of compulsion or contractual obligation for attendance at company functions.
