Partying after firm-sponsored dinner was employees’ choice and not in the course of employment: Court
An injury that occurred at a nightclub when a law firm associate fell on a law student following a firm-sponsored dinner was not related to their employment, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled.
Jeremy Poole was a senior associate with Vancouver law firm Alexander Holburn Beaudin and Lang. The firm sponsored a dinner out for associates and law students a few times each year, in order to encourage communication with members of the firm. It also allowed the firm to assess who had a certain type of social energy that could come in useful in the firm’s marketing of its legal services. The dinner was organized by associates and was only for them and the law students – no partners allowed.
On April 5, 2001, the firm held a dinner out attended by about 20 associates and students from the firm. The dinner ended around 10:30 p.m., but several attendees decided to continue partying at a nearby club for which their server had given them passes. It was common practice for several people to go out somewhere after the dinner, though this wasn’t an official part of the evening. The firm paid for dinner and drinks at the restaurant and a few drinks at the club, but most people paid for their own drinks at the afterparty.
Partying at nightclub after firm dinner led to accident
About 12:30 a.m., a few of the firm’s associates and students were still dancing. Poole – who had consumed a few drinks by then and was intoxicated -- was dancing with a law student at the firm, Michelle Danicek, when he lost his balance and fell on her, causing her to fall and hit her head on the floor. Danicek suffered serious head trauma that seriously affected her life. Danicek sued and a trial judge found her injuries were solely because of Poole’s negligence. Danicek was awarded more than $5.9 million in damages.
Poole made an application under the B.C. Workers Compensation Act, arguing Danicek’s injury happened in the course of employment and she could file a claim against him if she was eligible for compensation. However, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal rejected the claim, finding the activities at the club were separate from the employer-sanctioned dinner. It was the employees’ personal choices to be there. As a result, Danicek’s injuries and Poole’s conduct was not “out of or in the course of employment,” said the tribunal.
In a settlement, Poole agreed to pay Danicek $1,050,000 and agreed to admit liability. He also agreed to pursue a claim against Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, which provided coverage for members of the firm under a “professional package” policy. The policy provided coverage of up to $5 million for bodily injury to employees and students that happened within the scope or course of their employment and all employees performing activities “with respect to their employment” were covered. Poole argued the coverage should apply as long as there was any connection between his employment and the accident. If Poole won the claim, the amount would be divided based on their respective entitlements and Danicek would release Poole from further liability.
The trial judge found Poole’s actions did not occur in the scope of his employment. Though the associate dinner had “some business reasons” and was sponsored by the firm, the activities at the nightclub afterwards had “a far more tenuous connection” to employment. Some of the people at the dinner went home after dinner and the firm didn’t sponsor the afterparty, said the trial judge. As a result, Danicek’s injuries didn’t happen in the scope or course of employment and didn’t fall within the insurance coverage or workers’ compensation coverage.
Poole appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal, arguing the insurance package was intended to provide coverage to people associated with the firm in firm-related social activities that could enhance the firm’s profile, which gave them a connection to employment. He also claimed the visit to the nightclub was an extension of the firm dinner and was attended by employees and students who would not have otherwise been there but for the work function. He also argued the firm derived a long-term benefit from such social functions by attracting and retaining good employees as a result of them.
The Court of Appeal found the phrase “in respect to” their employment had a broader interpretation than “in the course of” or “within the scope of” their employment. However, it agreed with the lower court that it wasn’t of “infinite reach” and wasn’t within the reasonable expectations of the insurance provider and the firm.
“It seems to me that the phrase requires a line be drawn on a commercially reasonable basis between what are essentially firm functions and what are essentially social functions – notwithstanding some weak connection between the latter and an insured’s employment,” said the Court of Appeal.
The appeal court found that although the dinner was a function that could probably be said to be in respect of Poole’s and Danicek’s employment, the “line was crossed” when some of the attendees decided to go to the nightclub. Their attendance at the night club wasn’t really different than a few employees going out for a drink together after work – something which shouldn’t be considered in respect of or in the course of employment, said the appeal court.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Poole’s appeal.
For more information see:
