Di Perri v. Boys Brotherhood Republic of New York, Inc., 29 N.Y.2d 298 (1971)

An employee required to live on the employer’s premises, away from home, is generally entitled to workers’ compensation for injuries sustained during reasonable recreational activities, even if those activities occur off the employer’s direct premises, provided the employer knows and implicitly approves of the activity.

Summary

A 16-year-old kitchen helper at a summer camp, required to live on the premises, was injured while engaging in gymnastics at a neighboring camp’s recreation hall during off-duty hours. The use of the neighboring camp’s facilities was known and permitted by the employer. The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded compensation, but the Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the injury was compensable because the recreational activity was a reasonable incident of the employment, given the employee’s live-in status and the employer’s implicit approval of the activity.

Facts

The claimant, a 16-year-old, worked as a kitchen helper and waiter at a summer camp located about 30 miles from New York City. He was required to live at the camp and in return received board, lodging, and a potential bonus. During a three-day break in the camp’s program, the claimant returned to camp as directed. During his free time, the claimant and some co-employees went to a nearby camp (as they had before, with the employer’s knowledge) to use the recreation hall for gymnastics. While doing gymnastics, the claimant fractured his kneecap.

Procedural History

The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded compensation to the claimant. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board’s decision and dismissed the claim. The Workmen’s Compensation Board appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an employee, required to live on the employer’s premises, is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for injuries sustained during off-duty recreational activities that occur off the employer’s premises, when such activities are known and implicitly approved by the employer.

Holding

Yes, because the recreational activity was a reasonable incident of the employment, given the employee’s live-in status, the employer’s knowledge and implicit approval of the activity, and the limited recreational options available to the employee at the camp.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that when an employee is required to live on the employer’s premises, especially at a distance from their home, the employment status continues during the employee’s normal activities. Citing Matter of Davis v. Newsweek Mag., the court stated that an employee is “not expected to wait immobile, but may indulge in any reasonable activity at that place, and if he does so the risk inherent in such activity is an incident of his employment.” The court distinguished the case from situations where recreational activities are purely personal and unrelated to the employment environment, such as in Matter of Kaplan v. Zodiac Watch Co. The court noted that the claimant’s environment (a secluded summer camp) made recreational activities particularly reasonable. The court emphasized that the use of the neighboring camp’s recreational facilities was known and permitted by the employer, making it an “incidental adjunct to the employer’s own facilities.” The court also noted the fairness of the rule, stating that the availability of recreational facilities constituted an inducement for, and part of the contract of employment, especially considering the meager compensation received by the 16-year-old claimant. The court stated that its decision was “dictated by decisional law long established in this court.”