*1 PETITIONER-APPELLANT, PAIGE, WILLIAM G. v. CITY RAHWAY, DEPARTMENT, OF WATER RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT. Argued April 4, July 1977 Decided 1977.
Mr. Paul the cause for Franz argued appellant (Mr. George Mandle, brief). Jr. on the
Mr. Robert N. Golden cause argued respondent Turaslco, Graham, Lintner, & Golden (Messrs. attorneys). was delivered of the court opinion This is companion case Watson v. Pashman, Nassau is compensabil The sole issue *2 disability. total defendant conceded
ity, having claim but The of compensation granted petitioner’s “the matter reversed, Division Appellate holding rule.” The within the and appeal falls clearly R. Kole’s dissent. before us as because of Judge of right 2:2-1 (a) (2). The
The in dispute. petitioner, facts are not pertinent plant operators William of two chief water was one Paige, water Rahway. Water of the Department manned treatment and was around the clock plant operated his fellow and a Petitioner continuously by shift operator. on the 8 a.m. chief operator working alternated weekly p.m. p.m. to 4 Their duties the 4 to midnight shift and shift. organization included supervision department personnel, schedules, machinery keep work of plant maintenance records of worked under ing operations. chief operator the assistant of the superintendent department shift, but daytime he was complete charge shift. night to
Because there was no third for supervisor midnight shift, 8 a.m. one of them to remain on also had call during that shift and to take any for responsibility emergencies arise. Petitioner’s might testified that supervisor as a chief operator, was on call 24 hours a theoretically day, week, as are days policemen firemen. This duty formally incorporated was into the civil service description job, petitioner no extra compensation received for the additional weekday unless he was required to make However, a call.1 supervisor added that petitioner’s was, “on call” status in practical terms, limited to this petitioner 1During call, when he the weekends was on received pay for available. On those overtime occasions when paid go plant, to the he was for a he was least two hours appropriate rate, work, compensa overtime additional actually any hours worked. tion a.m. shift on weeks and to alternate midnight specified weekends. The to the men department left it two to determine they would between them- duty. They agreed p.m. selves the man to the to mid- assigned evening shift would also take night following responsibility to 8 a.m. shift. of a consequences Since breakdown in the water treat- ment system serious, would have of this performance on call critical of the operations plant. superintendent testified that department expected inform the if he left home for more than minutes, few and petitioner himself stated that always left a telephone number and address where he could be reached. He also said that he not travel substantial out distance of town when he was on call.
There was also evidence that had petitioner re- separate sponsibilities addition to this on bi-weekly call duty. On various occasions when the water pressure fluctuated (usually in the summer he was months), to make adjustments of certain interconnections located the These throughout city. were adjustments with made a valve key, a tool large, bulky with lever a arrangement. department a truck had with tools, the but equipped necessary he kept his own valve in the of key trunk his so car that he could drive directly the interconnections and avoid a making trip to the plant. this with the of approval his of superiors, one whom a valve also carried his key car to save time in making the same adjustments. which led injuries to this claim for workers’ com-
pensation benefits were caused by an unknown assailant just who attacked petitioner after he arrived home from work on the evening January 1972. Petitioner had p.m. on the 4 duty during and he had night just off dropped the shift op- home. He erator his then returned to his own home where he scheduled to was remain for the next hours. The particular details eight of the assault could not the compensation judge established before fully Neverthe- the memory impaired beating.
petitioner’s the have conceded that attack must oc- less, defendant car in after locked his immediately curred robbed and beaten a severely, suffering He was driveway. fracture, brain impairment signifi- skull depressed loss. He fell and fractured his hearing subsequently cant while seizure occurred shoulder right in his not chal- skull. Defendant has temporary plate had a injuries these constituted total dis- lenged finding, ability. of com conclusion of the judge
We agree legal in the injuries occurred course petitioner’s him and therefore entitle workers’ employment his under N. J. S. A. 34:15-7. Although compensation benefits decision the factual set stressed in his particular assault,2 we think that tragic ting surrounding a sufficient basis for nature of status is petitioner’s rationale for providing recovery. is the suspension employment relationship
rule after from work employee’s departure day, Gullo v. American Lead Pencil N. J. L. see Gilroy & A. v. Standard Oil 107 N. J. L. (E. 170, 172 & A. (E. 1930). Since on call status him to even his left obligated place work, the has no here obviously rule as a application compensation. bar to Petitioner under direct instruc to inform tions whereabouts *4 to 8 a.m. shift and to remain available for emer calls. gency personally accountable for opera tion of the plant could be at time. He interrupted mentioned, particular, late hour at 2He assaulted, personal emergency car the use of his and the tasks k e presenc in his car at of wor tools time the assault. Cf. (E. 1937) ; N. Arthur J. v. McMullen L. 574 & A. Rubeo Newark, Super. Pisapta (Cty. 1957). Ct. took these as an responsibilities seriously integral part remained, his job as the compensation found, “on a rather leash” tight these It stand-by periods; is clear that petitioner’s home at hour trip and his at location the time of the assault were both within contemplation his employer. Bryant See Adm’x v. Fis sell, 84 N. L. 72, 77 Ct. (Sup. 1913). addition,
In received a city substantial from benefit this since working arrangement, it could dispense with need for a chief third to operator supervise the midnight a.m. Moreover, noted, to shift. as the compensation judge relieved city was of the cost of suitable providing sleep- ing quarters chief operator this shift. It would be to the contrary underlying purposes workers’ compensation force the to absorb employee risks of extra duty because he home. returned See Watson v. Nassau 74 N. J. supra, 159; v. American supra, 74 N. J. at 188-189.
These facts from distinguish petitioner’s position formal jobs descriptions whose also contain a requirement be on call for at all emergencies times. Paterson, Jasaitis we (1959), upheld injured of benefits to his home policeman way award from work. we Significantly, his duties emphasized specific while in uniform and the benefits public of his visible’ pres ence crime, as deterrent rather than his on call status Id. around the clock. at 85-86. Robinson v. Levy, Cf. N. J. Misc. 444 C. B. Juna (W. v. New York State Police, A. D. 2d 336 N. Y. S. 2d 738 (1972); Club, Donnell v. Waccacbuc Country 29 D. A. 2d N. Y. S. 2d 534 contrast, in Morris v. Her (1968). By mann 18 N. J. 195 Forwarding we denied com (1955), where the claimant’s home activities were limited to occasional Id. telephone calls his at 200. It no difference here that injuries makes stem from an directly As in emergency plant. Jasaitis, off time his was not own because he re-
182 dictated well defined limitations subject
mained fact, case than Jasaitis be- stronger is for immediate service was critical cause readiness petitioner’s of the plant. to the safe and efficient operation assault did not “arise out Defendant’s that the argument found without merit. We have employment of” petitioner’s extended to his home so employment petitioner’s at- that he was still in the course of employment tacked; it would have occurred for” his em- thus “but Press, White v. Atlantic 64 N. J. City See ployment. Co., Howard v. Restaurant N. J. Harwood's 25 (1973); 72, 82 was mo- Absent the assault (1957). any proof tivated unrelated purely by personal animus Co., see v. Rubin N. J. Pittel Bros. employment, Bergen Div. Super. causal connec- (App. 1960) requisite tion is under established risk”3 test which “positional See, Press, we have e. White v. Atlantic adopted. g., supra. reversed, Division is Appellate
The judgment rein- compensation hereby the decision of stated. an holds that J., dissenting.
Schreiber, from his after home arriving was injured who to worker’s compensation entitled work schedule is regular than acknowledging he was call. Rather vitality rule no has longer Main Wyatt today, Metropolitan in view of its decisions Watson v. Nassau tenance N. J. 167 (1977), Biltrite, 74 N. J. Briggs (1977), v. The Great Hornyak decision in and its previous 185 (1977), & N. J. 99 the Court Atlantic Tea (1973), Pacific where em extended situation compensability has of his regular ployee completion suffers 3See v. American *6 at a when he subject
work and arrival at home time call, but being compensated. not
Eo cited for the enunciated ex- authority proposition Jasaitis, Paterson, Jasaitis v. 31 N. J. 81 cept a uniformed officer was held be entitled to com- police for accidental while en route home. suffered Under officer police department regulations per- mitted to wear his uniform for hour fixed one after his tour of also that while in duty. regulations provided uniform he was subject specific restrictions. departmental The Court commented in those the police circumstances officer was in the implicated job of public protection was in the course of his duties home. The work in Jasaitis relationship cannot be with the equated instant case. Jasaitis is not an on call situation. It status action involves the of a uniform policeman accordance with department The Jasaitis regulations. court makes it clear that, not abundantly if the officer had been in uni- form, the accident would have been compensable. not
The issue to be addressed is whether the City Rahway and its water should consumers be properly assessed the costs incurred by virtue of an assault upon a water de- partment he employee after had arrived home regular was on call. status Is so intimately related with the work that injuries suffered during that period be compensable? should Such accidents do occur on the employer’s premises. is free employee to do what he pleases move- except that his ments limited in the sense may be must reach- be able. Other than that limitation, he is not in un- any wise der the control or supervision of the The ma- jority’s argument having Paige for emergencies was substantially beneficial to the so as to distin- guish case from others which the employee may on call for N. emergencies, 180-182, is at a dif- best ference in and not degree distinction. research, and that
Our of counsel have no case produced when work relation employee’s holding compensability call status. has exclusively Compensability his on ship was en been awarded some courts when the route to the or out. job returning called having Robinson v. Levy, has cited such cases. N. J. Misc. 444 Bur. Comp. (permanent (Workmen’s 1942) nurse for child who the basis was employed paid on of 24 hours from her home per day injured returning where she had Juna v. New uniforms); laundered some Police, York State Div. N. Y. App. 2d S. 2d officer killed in automobile ac (state police cident on within area returning duty while geographic *7 and troop who under police regulations to take and prompt action proper police matters); all Club, 1022, Donnell Waccabuc Country v. 29 Div. 2d App. N. Y. 534 S. 2d who sub (beach guard to call and while ject being paid injured home). returning cases, hand, There are numerous on which have held that and rule going coming applies to Foster v. D. F. Massey, 132 U. S. C. employee; App. Duggar, 2d 343 C. Cir. Russellville Gas Co. v. (D. Ala. 661, Thornton App. So. 2d 393 (Civ. App. 1971); v. Texarkana Cotton Oil Ark. 650, 243 S. W. 2d Corp., Workmen’s Larson, Compensation Law (1951); 24.23 (1972). § se not create per compensability. should
The on status at that time. He not is not on is per The employee employer. any engaged services forming he desires di whatever endeavors personal If, the control of the rected or under as viable rule remains states, from to or daily trips employee’s to exclude routine day, Briggs business at the fixed place 189-190, then the employee after his scheduled work at the regularly Paige’s trip home cannot com- Water Rahway Department plant encompass pensable injury trip. His call status during was irrelevant. Presumably he could not be called until arrived at home. Furthermore, even reaching upon home, the fact had a him, to call right had not exercised, it is not in and of itself sufficient to warrant costs of his imposing on the of Rah- Water way Department its consumers.
I would affirm.
Justice Clifford joins this opinion. Hughes For reversal —Chief Justice Moun- and Justices tain, Sullivan, Pashman and Handler —5.
For Clifford and Schreiber —3. affirmance—Justice BRIGGS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, ROBERT BILTRITE,
AMERICAN RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. Argued April 4, July 1977 Decided 1977.