*1 MAYER, JOHN MаcQUAIDE NORMAN AND THOMAS J. SMITH, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, v. JOHN E. RUN- HOSPITAL, NELLS RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
Argued May 6, 26, 1974 Decided June 1974. Ms. D. Gillen Mary the cause for argue appellants. Pollis, Williams, Dillon, Pappas for (Messrs. attorneys MacQuaide; & Ironson, attorneys Messrs. Gorrin appellant Ravich, Shevich, and Messrs. Kosler appellant Mayer; & Baumgarten, attorneys Appellant Smith.)
Mr. W. Gerald Conway argued the cause for respondent, Brause, & Messrs. Callaghan Coyle, attorneys). is affirmеd judgment substantially
Per Curiam. the reasons expressed by Appellate Division, 129 Super. J. I respectfully dissent from (dissenting).
Pashman, majority’s holding and would to abandon vote the going rule. The workmen’s re compensation statute for an injury be compensable, it must arise quires out of and course A. S. 34: 95, c. (L. 7). little provided § as to what was within guidance encompassed this phrase. Our courts soon held that accident was when incidental “reasonably it was to the employment” * 4’ * employee doing if it occurs while the a man what so em рloyed may reasonably during employed, do within a time which he is may reasonably during and at a where he time. [Bryant, Fissell, 72, 76, (Sup. 1913)]. Adm’x. v. N. L. Ct. however, came to be recognized, that at some point was “on his own.” Gullo v. American Lead Pencil *2 Co., 119 N. J. L. 484, 486 & A. This (E. 1938). recognition which, rise to the and rule gave generally, to limit recovery intended to accidents on the em occurring ployer’s This premises. supposedly objective line between and noncompensable accidents soon succumbed considerations in the court equitable interpreting guiding such remedial rule has legislation. The come to be honored in more in frequently its breach than adherence to man its Note, date. See Of’ ‘In the generally, “Arising ‘Out Course Of’ The New Work Employment Under the Jersey Act,” men’s Compensation Rutgers L. Rev. 613-621 599, (1966). which exceptions have developed since the rule was
first by formulated our courts too are numerous to mention A here. most thorough discussion can be comprehensive Larson, found in 1 Workmen’s et Compensation, 15.13 seq. § Horovitz, See also 14 NACCA 36, L. J. 37-46 Horo (1954); vitz, “Workmen’s Half Compensation: Century of Judicial 41 Neb. L. Developments,” 1, Rev. (1961); Rule,” 185, “The 41 N. D. L. 186- Going Rev. Coming 192 (1964-1965); 99 C. J. S. Workmen’s Compensation § 232 et seq.
Workmen’s an compensation represents attempt burden work-related on injuries of Legislature who on employer, ultimately passes it to the consumer. This is consistent with the philosophy injuries are cost Our com production and workmen’s consumption. pensation scheme is “humane social aimed at legislation” placing burden of on those who benefit compensation from the manufacture' Hornyak most of the product. & Co., Great Atlantic Tea 99, 63 N. J. 101 (1973). Pacific The liberal intent of the has been to in held clude which occur even after has been employment E. g., Thornton v. terminated. Chamberlain Manufacturing J.N. Corp., (1973). Our never interpreted courts on accidents the em- solely literally apply statute Hornyak, at 102-103 of 63 Sеe supra
ployer’s premises. N. J. and cases cited therein. law in was enacted compensation workmen’s
Since the em the nature as to 1911, our concepts have substantial undergone relationships ployer-employee am of the opinion I sociologically. legally both changes, been essential have hazards long and its traveling Co., v. Aniero Concrete Ricciardi job. part and com J., dissenting). (1973) (Jacobs, created constructions abandoned. Judicial should ing rules not immutable context are social and legal distant City Atlantic White v. discarded.1 See being incapable Press, Corp., Beh v. Breeze (1973), overruling 64 N. *3 N.2 (1949). 279 been force rule have the abandoning
The arguments Co., 64 supra, Ricciardi v. Aniero Concrete set out in fully 63-66; 101-105; Ham Hornyak, N. J. 63 N. J. at supra, at Co., J. 7, mond v. Atlantic & Tea 56 N. 11-13 Great Pacific Church, 12 Presbyterian Moosebrugger Prospect (1970); Wachenfeld, N. J. Heher and (1953) (Jacobs, JJ., dissenting). to аnd with the
Adherence the rule coming coupled going have tendency thereto, to the traditional expand exceptions to led and often distinctions undermin illogicаl inequitable Note, initial the rule. justifications See ing retaining 618-619; L. supra, Rutgers Note, 20 Rev. at 41 N. D. supra, L. Rev. at the herein holding per is majority Co., v. Damar compared best with Ricciardi Products haps J.N. an ac where the Court held (1965), while cident from a occurring returning was picnic. by was the outing sponsored employer, but was proven workers, coming unfair tо lias to 1“The and judicial command, given judicial legislative should be flat and not supra, [Horovitz, 46]. A L. J. NACC at burial.” a day held on without nonworking mandatory attendance. Chief Weintraub’s was as reasoning Justice follows: here, employer sponsors Where, as a event for the recreational the purpose maintaining improving among or with and em relаtions ployees, employees gratify by attending employer’s the wish employer’s say thus serve business aim. therefore is correct to enterprise injuries bear intended thе risk of company picnic incidental to that a event. Hence the itself cov was * * *2 ered affair. Thus, law will in this jurisdiction compensation is that injuries be awarded for from a sustained while returning non-mandatory company-sponsored picnic nonworking on while day, compensation injuries denied sustained one to his normal a work traveling plаce of on day. It would seem travel to and from work is more “reasonably incidental employment” than travel from a picnic. The ‘^business aim” of is certainly the picnic less than that daily work. at See [45 61]. L.
supra,
Rutgers
Rev. at 616-617.
Ricciardi v.
Compare
Damar
Co.
Products
with
v. First
Nat.
O’Brien
Camden
Co.,
Bank & Trust
note
(1962)
(especially
concurrence of Chiеf Justice
The current
Weintraub).
pro
liferation
exceptions to
rule have
subsumed
what
intended to be
“conscientious endeavor
to maintain a liberally just
line” between those
with
some work
connection
those
unrelated
Weiss, Inc.,
Tocci v. Tessler &
28 N. J. 582, 587 (1959).
Workmen’s compensation is a liberal social policy pro-
*4
of
gram the
which
nеver
purpose
fault,
was
related to
but
rather to an
and efficient
of
means
equitable
compensating
for
employees
sustained
aims
while
the
furthering
of
employers.
their
must at
last be
Eecognition
long
given
Curiously,
opinion
2
risks greater to work Rutgers journey inherently L. Rev. at is That of employer. his employee’s responsibility part some way directly participated countless have in employers whose of the is journey journey or sanction employee’s an found to fall within to the exception E. v. Bergman is of this relationship. g., evidence Bros., Inc., N. N. v. Parnes J. 559 (1971); Pearce ; Highway Authority, 1973) Div. Super. (App. Industries, Williams Remco (App. Super. 61 N. J. com Div.), certif. den. 163 (1972). Workmen’s in pensation illogical was not meant effect and sporadic to be in distinguishing among for benefits. those who are eligible located in a isolated fairly Hospital
John E. Runnells no link hospital There is to the in Berkeley Heights. area the dif- Recognizing public transрortation. of any means work, respon- in had ficulty employees commuting that its from nearest bus a free service dent maintained shuttle A tem- a of about miles. distance two hospital, stop an in- of in such porary termination this service resulted creased rate absenteeism reinstated. of the service was saved
Petitioners the use оf car because it preferred pool avoided them and was more convenient. The car pool time late connection, possibility missing arriving bus peti- work аnd docked time While missed. being pay 8 o’clock, journey tioners not due at work until their were at 7 the pur- o’clock. is difficult to began conceive journey this other than tо fulfill pose anything an to the obligation employer. picked Petitioners were up proceeded directly to their with the sole in at that objective arriving plaсe punctually or- to perform der their duties. To that this deny journey others similar to it arise out of and the course of employ- line, ment is to arbitrary capricious draw inеquitable in effect and unjustifiable in terms of rendered the services *5 Quite obviously, journey his employer. itself. and from work is essential to the work and allow compen- I would Division Appellate reverse of and sation in arose out that plaintiffs’ of their course
I am that Justices Jacobs Moun- authorized to state tain join this dissent. Hughes Hall,
For and Justices Justice affirmance —Chief Sullivan and Clieeoed —4. —
For reversal Jacobs, Mountain Pash- Justices man —3. CORPORATION,
CIVIC SOUTHERN A CORPORA FACTORS CAROLINA, TION THE OF PLAIN STATE OF NORTH TIFF-RESPONDENT, BONAT, v. JEROME DEFENDANT- PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT AND THIRD PARTY STATE MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AL., DEFENDANTS, ET THIRD PARTY AND A. JOSEPH FREED, BONURA AND EUGENE DE V. THIRD PARTY FENDANTS. Argued May 6, July 9, 1974 Decided