*1 4, 1990 Decided December Wheeler, Wheeler, Long, Weinberg, Ansley Sidney & F. Debra LeVorse, Lourie, A. Lance D. appellants. for
Surrett, Walker, Surrett, Colley, Creson Carl Mark L. J. Wilhelmi, appellee. AMERICA,
A90A1124. PIZZA HUT OF INC. v. HOOD et al. A90A1382. CLARKE COUNTY v. HOOD et al. Deen, Presiding Judge. 22, 1988, America, May Inc., sponsored picnic Pizza Hut of
for its County park. and their families at a Clarke Em- Hood, Jr., drowned in a lake at the during the picnic. parents Hood’s and the administrator of Hood’s estate sued Pizza Hut and County. appeals Pizza Hut from the trial grant court’s judgment plaintiffs on Pizza Hut’s Compensation provided defense that the Workers’ Act the ex- remedy. County appeals from the denial of its motion summary sovereign based on its defense of immunity.
Case No. A90A1124 1. Recreational or social activities are within the course of em- ployment, subject if, (1) and thus Compensation to the Workers’ Act premises occur on work during period a lunch or recreation as a regular (2) incident employment, or employee participation is re- quired, (3) either expressly byor implication, or derives a substantial benefit beyond improvement from the event in em- ployee health and morale that is common to all kinds of recreational activities. Crowe v. Home Indem. or social The Pizza prem- Hut did not occur on work ises, and although employee attendance was encouraged, it was not required. Accordingly, possible the first two bases for workers’ com- pensation coverage are absent the instant case. Pizza Hut contends coverage applies under the third base because was more just a morale and health booster for but also had the purpose of promoting its new pizza of traditional hand-tossed and recruiting and maintaining employees. evidence the record that Pizza Hut effort at the product. new only possible benefit that Pizza Hut have could improvement hoped employee to derive from function was attempt employee Employers generally health and morale. boost only company sake, morale not morale’s but for benefits to resulting benefits, better These inestimable from morale. employer-sponsored subjects however, not of the kind that an are re- Compensation creational or social to the Act. *2 properly granted appel- trial court lees. No.
Case A90A1382 County specifically against purchasing 2. In 1986 Clarke decided liability agents county against insurance claims and its County’s drowning,
and officers.At the time Hood’s pay defend to and such claims from a “Self- Apparently Funded Insurance Internal Service on the Fund.” basis plan that this allocation of funds a constituted self-insurance that sovereign immunity, County’s waived the trial court denied Clarke summary judgment motion for on that defense. Supreme recently Court has that held “under statutes
dealing liability government employees insurance for and offi- seq.], only plans [OCGA § cials 45-9-1 et state self-insurance will sovereign immunity. provision county waive up There is no for a to set Wright, plan.” Logue a self-insurance 235) (1990). Consequently, County’s In- “Self-Funded plan surance Internal Service Fund” was not self-insurance that sovereign immunity, could waive and Clarke was entitled to summary judgment on that issue. Judgment Corley, J., in Case No. C. A90A1124. Mc- affirmed
Murray, Birdsong, Pope Cooper, J., Banke, P. J., JJ., P. and concur. Sognier Beasley, Judgment JJ., and dissent. reversed Case No. Carley, McMurray, Birdsong, J., J., J., A90A1382. Banke, C. P. P. Sognier, Pope, Beasley Cooper, JJ., and concur. Judge, dissenting in Case No. A90A1124.
Beasley, genuine employee’s issue of material fact company picnic involvement in the was “in “arouse out of” and scope employment. of” his be the ex- should remedy in this case. Why young park Hood at when he drowned? follow- ing undisputed. is job performer, cleaner, dishwasher, Hood was a odd and salad bar maintainer at drowned the Pizza Hut restaurant. He company picnic. per- Swimming advertised, it had not been but was mitted. manager. the area Its was conceived The idea of the importance employees emphasize
purposes product of a new were fringe provide sales, of recre- its so as to employees families, recruitment to act as a and their and ation designated the “Athens Area The event was retention incentive. games.” The invitation and softball 1988 Makin-It-Great pizza with a traditional want to kick off hand-tossed stated: “We Spring great for a time.” blast! Come out planned, arranged, Management the event and sent maps, tickets, restaurants. an invitation to each of area displayed. Manage- signs map would be indicated that Pizza Hut The ment set-up presided games, organized over softball the food Management organized prescribed controlled the times. which were picnic and the activities. strongly encouraged
All invited. Attendance was were desiring required. of those to attend not Work schedules manipulated who not care to at- could do so. Those did were tend worked instead others. agement so they agreed split to,
if shifts accommodated Pay or non-attendance. Man- was not affected attendance transportation arrangements in some instances. conclusively Melvin Hood’s Do these circumstances mean that *3 employment? § death arose out of and in the course of his 9-1 OCGA 34- (4). obviously Melvin Hood the because he was an em- was at Hut, time, and he was not of Pizza it was on his own obligated fully sponsored by employer in to attend. The event was his capacity employer. as The rationale for the was for more manifestly by goals promoting morale; it was driven of thereby increasing retaining a new sales as well as a sta- employer. ble work force. These were direct benefits the considering In the facts here in other com- over facts pany-sponsored picnic Larson, 1A cases discussed in The Law of (a) (1990 Rev.), Compensation, 5-121, § Workmen’s 22.23 cases by parties, principles cited as well as the set forth in Larson and (Crowe the two closest cases in v. Home Indem. 145 Ga. (245 75) App. (1978), Augusta City 873 v. SE2d Council of (255 140) App. (1979)), Nevils, 149 Ga. 688 SE2d I conclude that the compensation applies law of workers’ so as to entitle Pizza Hut to summary judgment. activity sufficiently § OCGA 34-9-11. The was totally work-related, initiated, for, and con- by employer’s agents, trolled mere more than derived morale-engendering benefits such as would arise from recre- activity. appears primary moving ational It clear that the force [and] was to “have . . . achieved economic business [picnic].” City Augusta, supra from the 689. Council
115 in keeping This is with Georgia’s of liberal construction of Taylor, &c. coverage. workers’ American Co. Gulf 179, I Judge Sognier joins am authorized to state that this dissent. 27, Decided November 18, denied December Blasingame, Burch, Bryant, Burch, Garrard & Swift, E. Davison Currie, Hiers, (case McDonald, Jr., McGhee & James T. for appellant A90A1124). no. McArthur, Nicholson, Drew,
Nicholson & John R. Eckl & Farn- ham, Freeman, (case Phillip Friduss, Theodore appellant E. no. A90A1382).
Winburn, Barrow, Winburn, Barrow, Lewis Gene Mac John J. appellees.
A90A1168. GOLDEN v. GEORGIA BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION.
Pope, Judge. granted
We discretionary this appeal to consider whether trial correctly court appellant application Don C. Golden’s present pursuant (f) additional evidence to OCGA 50-13-19 § whether there was sufficient evidence support Golden’s termination by appellee Georgia (GBI). Bureau of Investigation Golden was termi- nated April the GBI in 1986 as a result of his conduct connec- tion with a traffic 25, accident February Rockdale on 1986. The termination upheld in an initial by hearing decision officer Board; the State Personnel decision was affirmed the State 19, Personnel Board on November appeal 1986. Golden filed his superior 18, court on superior court affirmed the termination in an order entered December 1989. We then *4 granted this discretionary appeal.
The record shows that employed Golden was agent. as GBI the evening February 25, 1986, Golden GBI agents met other bar in downtown stayed Atlanta. He p.m. ap- there from 6:00 until proximately p.m. vehicle, 10:00 Driving a State Golden left go bar to 1-20, east, home. As he drove on proceeding Golden’s car ran into the rear of Dyer. a car driven Dyer Charles S. testified that he was travelling about 55 per miles hour when he hit. Dyer’s spun car flipped over, around and coming to rest on an em-