BARI ITALIAN FOOD AND UNITED SELF INSURED SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
GREG RITTGER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves an appeal concerning the liability of insurance companies following a one-car accident where a rented vehicle was involved, and the primary issue is whether a release executed by an injured party bars the subrogation rights of her insurer.
The release executed by the injured party in favor of the tortfeasors does not bar the subrogation rights of her insurer, as the tortfeasors had knowledge of the insurer's subrogation rights.
[1] An injury sustained during an employer-sponsored recreational activity is compensable if the employer derives substantial direct benefit from the activity beyond the inta…
[2] An employer derives substantial direct benefit from an employee recreational activity when the activity provides advertising and publicity, such as through team uniforms…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA renter's daughter was injured when the rented van, driven with consent, crashed. The renter's health insurer paid medical benefits and, as subrogee,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim For Workers' Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellants, employer/carrier, appeal the deputy commissioner’s order awarding temporary total, temporary partial, and medical benefits to appellee, upon his determination that an injury suffered by appellee in a city league softball game is compensable. We affirm.
On October 3, 1986, appellee suffered a knee injury while playing on a softball team sponsored by his employer, appellant Bari Italian Food, which is a family owned and operated wholesale food business. The evidence showed that the employer had sponsored the team for participation in the city softball league by paying the entry fee and providing uniforms and equipment; the team jerseys bore the words “Bari Badgers”; participation on the team by the employees was voluntary; no games or practices took place on company property nor were they scheduled by the employer; games and practices were held on the employees’ own time, but notices thereof were posted on the company premises, and meetings concerning scheduling sometimes were held on company property.
The deputy commissioner made extensive findings and determined that the company received advertising and publicity benefits from the team’s efforts. He found that the uniforms displayed the company name; team members, other employees of the company, wives and girlfriends went to various pizza parlors that were clients of the company after the games; sales representatives from the company who handled the pizza parlors’ account also attended those postgame activities; the wives and girlfriends wore T-shirts, identifying the company and matching the company’s jerseys worn by the players, to the games and to the postgame activities. Placing great significance on the fact that the company is a small family owned corporation which benefited perhaps to a greater extent than a large corporation from such a team endeavor, and due also to the fact that the team then patronized company customers as a group following the games, the DC concluded that the company benefited from the teams’ efforts to the extent that this injury should be deemed compensable.
In Brockman v. City of Dania, 428 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and City of Tampa v. Jones, 448 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this Court adopted a three-pronged test, originally set forth in Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, Volume IA, Section 22.00, for the determination of the circumstances under which recreational or social activities come within the course of employment. As recognized in those cases, if any one of the three prongs set forth in the test are met by the circumstances of the case, the activity is deemed to be in the course of employment. The three-pronged test requires consideration of the following:
1. Whether the activities occur on the employer’s premises during a lunch or recreation period as a regular incident of the employment; or
2. Whether 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 3. Whether the employer derived substantial direct benefit from the activity beyond the intangible value of the improvement in employee health and morale that is common to all kinds of recreation and social life.
We find that competent substantial evidence supports the deputy commissioner’s determination that the requirements of prong three have been met in the instant case. Therefore, we affirm.
MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sterling v. Brown, 580 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…o someone contributing to its Christmas food drive intended to create goodwill in the community, did not benefit from its employee’s attendance at the party when the employee was merely a guest of the prize-winner); and Bari Italian Food v. Rittger, 527 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (employer benefited from claimant’s participation on softball team because the team advertised the company name on its uniforms, and team members regularly patronized the company’s customers after the games, often accompanied by…
-
Turner v. Rinker Material Corp. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 554 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…s not dispositive of the compensability issue, in light of the substantial direct benefit derived by Rinker from its employees’ submission thereto, i.e., the retention of experienced truck drivers in its work force. See Bari Italian Food v. Rittger, 527 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (injury in an employer-sponsored softball game held off the premises on the employees’ own time held compensable in light of the public relations benefit of the team to the employer). Based on the foregoing, we find that the jud…
-
Hutchinson v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Serv., 561 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…mpensability. He found that the evidence did not indicate that the employer either expressly or impliedly required participation in the game or that the employer derived any substantial direct benefit from the game. In Bari Italian Food v. Rittger, 527 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), Brockman v. City of Dania, 428 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and City of Tampa v. Jones, 448 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this court recognized the following three-prong test to be considered in determining whether an activ…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brockman v. City OF Dania & Div. of Workers' Comp. of the Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 428 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- City OF Tampa v. Jones, 448 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)