*1 formally rule, not though eliminating coming — has a new the Court here added dimension coverage accidents which materialize arriving home. after work the employee’s occurred outside regular accident and not hours, not on the employer’s premises, direction when he was under the control or period with The attenuated relationship employer. take soiled
namely proceeding Park, far too remote to clothes for cleaning Asbury trip of an personal conclude that costs Inn, its Nassau should be on the imposed employer, Co., 74 Maintenance Wyatt Metropolitan patrons. N. J. opinion). (dissenting I would affirm.
Justice Clifford joins this opinion. Hughes Moun- For and Justices Justice reversal —Chief tain, Sullivan, Pashman and Handler —S.
For and Schreiber —-2. Clifford affirmance—Justices WYATT, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, KEITH v. METRO COMPANY, POLITAN MAINTENANCE RESPONDENT- APPELLANT. April
Argued July 25, 4, 1977 Decided *2 Mr. L. Raymond Gunneen the cause for argued appellant O’Gorman, Gunneen and attorneys; Hugh Mr. (Messrs. J. O’Gorman on the brief).
Mr. Bolstein Philip (Mr. cause argued respondent Bassin, Samuel 8. attorney). of the court was delivered opinion by 7, J. On 1972, afternoon of August peti
Pashman, tioner, Keith was robbed and Wyatt, shot his lunch break as he was to the Martland Medical returning Center in Newark. He was employed by there defend porter as ant Maintenance Metropolitan Co. The judge of compensa tion and the Division Appellate claim for upheld his bene fits under Workers’ Act, N. J. S. A. 34: 15-1 et seq.,1 on v. The relying Hornyak Great Atlantic & Tea N. J. In its petition for cer Pacific tification, suggested defendant this case factually was distinguishable Hornyah because had petitioner access 352, amending c. 34:1A-5.1, 1L. J. S. A. renamed Division of Workmen’s as the “Division of Workers’ Compensation,” Although statutory effective March change compensa was limited to the term “Division of Workmen’s tion,” we shall refer to the benefits administered division as “workers’ benefits.” at his place eating facilities where food hot was served. It that the lower argued erred in courts extend- ing Hornyak and to bar refusing compensation under the rule. coming Having granted certification, 71 N. J. 336 we now hold that Hornyak is controlling and therefore affirm.
Petitioner was old when years this incident occurred. he worked Although part-time the hospital when school session, was in summer he was employed full- p.m. time, the 7 a.m. working 3:30 shift. He ordinarily was allotted 30 minutes to eat his lunch at any time be- p.m. tween IS noon and 1 A cafeteria in the hospital which open defendant’s employees hospital staff served meals, hot but petitioner ate there he infrequently because found the food Instead, unsatisfactory. brought own *3 lunch or bought a sandwich a store nearby where the food cheaper. was He was under no from instructions his super- visors to in eat the hospital cafeteria or to remain on the premises his half hour break. assault,
On the he left day of the after shortly noon to a and a soda sandwich at purchase luncheonette which was located about from two the The walk hospital. blocks took about five minutes. He lunch bought out,” his to “take to eat it back at the He intending hospital. was accosted on the street after left the just he store. His assailant drew a and him into an gun alley, where he took dragged peti- then, tioner’s and pocket change without shot him warning, in he stomach. Subsequently the underwent but the surgery, doctors were unable to remove bullet. the the Although youth returned to work several weeks later and as began school scheduled, he was unable to in recreational participate The sports. judge compensation awarded for compensation the period of and found temporary disability 12j4% partial permanent disability. The Division Appellate affirmed in an curiam unpublished per opinion.
The sole issue on whether the of com- appeal is finding Horn- pensability, which was on our decision in predicated 170
yak, was correct. both the As and the compensation judge in case differ the recognized, Division facts Appellate ah Horny employee here. the from those present slightly p.m. a.m. 7 from 9:30 or shift worked night 1:30 a.m. half hour lunch break between took his in when beginning was check 2 a.m. he required to Although he was shift, his out when finishing and to check work out. checking without leave to eat premises permitted ma had vending J. The lunchroom N. at 100. no meals obtained, but from which could chines drinks were in Hence, of the employees were served. most Id. towns. in neighboring habit of driving eating places an automobile injured claimant was warehouse a few just blocks from the Id. diner. nearby as meal at returning was argu rejected Jacobs Court, Justice Writing prem from the departure mealtime ment that Stressing employment. abandonment ises underpin questionable of the act remedial purposes v. Nassau Watson rule, see and coming nings half he analogized Inn, work which interruptions brief to other lunch break hour See, g., e. employment. of” course be “in the held to were Co., Inc., N. J. Super. Electric Jones v. Continental watch 38 N. J. 312 (night den. (1962) certif. Div.), (App. Co., 49 Driver Harris Crotty lunch); man’s midnight N. J. 75 den. 27 1958), Div. certif. N. J. Super. (App. Jordan v. Western air); breath of fresh (smoke *4 Co., (coffee P. 598 1 Or. 463 2d App. (1970) Electric Hawaii, 54 Pacheco v. Orchids Dependents break); of check). P. 2d 1399 As (cashing pay Haw. 502 had eat out, the employee he pointed choice, obtaining and, . . hot food was matter his own while . increasing only geared him but was also towards it not eonvenienced clearly efficiency employer’s in his interest. his which was N. [63 107-08] J. at
171 Defendant that erroneously argues of hot availability meals hospital act of out for punching lunch break ale render Horny ease This inapposite. fact our decision overlooks that there was argument an on the more fact who grounded significant employee his work leaves his place interrupts his workday lunch not completed knows that he has His as lunch that he will be soon as his is over. returning really time not his 63 N. J. at 107-08. Midday is own. meal periods have been an recognized integral as part long the work act, routine. our Very early history courts held that would injuries accidental breaks be if the usual compensable or near his Son, place of work. See v. Charles E. & 121 Flanagan Green N. J. L. 327 1938), aff’d, Ct. 122 N. J. L. (Sup. (E. 424 & Co., A. Bolos v. & Trenton Fire 1939); Porcelain 102 Clay N. L. 470 Ct. aff’d J. (Sup. J. 103 N. L. 483 & A. 1926), (E. 1927). we Although denied in Robertson v. Ex press Container N. 13 J. Corp., 342 em because the to an ployee strayed unfamiliar of the prem part her break, ises lunch we took a more subsequently much Weiss, Inc., liberal view in Tocci v. Tessler & J. 582 N. (1959), awarding an compensation to employee injured while in a participating softball held on the game regularly employer’s premises.
Thus, Hornyak’s rationale fully applicable as as long the mealtime from the work is a departure premises prac- tice or countenanced permitted employer and the of, employee’s activity considered abandonment cannot from, instance, deviation In this employment. peti- tioner’s injuries from the assault2 occurred within two blocks of the medical center just after purchased argued has not 2Defendant the assault lacks a causal relation petitioner’s employment. City Press, See White v. Atlantic (1973) ; Sons, J. J. N. Martin & Lichtman N. (1964) ; v. Harwood’s Restaurant J. Howard
lunch and his return to the medical center. Un- began trip circumstances, der these it would have been errone- clearly ous deny to compensation. of re-assess wisdom to the urges defendant us
However, Dean criti from Larson’s extensively Eornyak itself, quoting “horrible of parade hypothetieals”3 cism of the decision Law Compensation (1976 The Workmen’s treatise, in his is prem To the critique 15.53. extent this Supp.), § rule, we are and coming” on a of the defense “going ised Wat rule, see of the vitality not persuaded. Assuming Inn, to son N. J. continue v. Nassau at we supra, con sufficiently think an luncheon break is set and work time constraints by obligations ditioned his end of the day. from home at the apart trip it Co., N. The & Tea Hornyak v. Great Atlantic Pacific addition, usually these brief relatively respites employee redound to benefit enabling case, renew work with This his increased vigor. being ra we find no from basic reason to compelling depart tionale of Hornyak.
Affirmed. who J., The petitioner employee, dissenting. Schreiber, away chose to two eat lunch at luncheonette about blocks was shot and robbed. hospital where he working, Division the ma Judge Compensation, Appellate Court, each v. The Great jority Hornyak on relying Co., Atlantic Tea N. J. have held 99 (1973), Pacific evidently inspired by suggestion 3This criticism was that off- may premises injuries during compensable lunchtime breaks even perform if time other utilizes free errands of a personal citing Dependents N. J. nature. See 63 Pacheco Hawaii, supra, 2d Orchids P. at 1401. We need not con activity sider under what circumstances such will be deemed deviation from the there is abandonment of or since any not even a hint of in this case. Rainear v. deviation Cf. Inc., C. J. Rainear J. 276 *6 the injuries are under petitioner’s compensable the Workers’ Compensation Act, N. J. A. et S. 34:15-1 seq.
The criteria language prescribing compensability expressed in the Workers’ Act first in when enacted 1911 remains same 7 today. Compare 1911, 95, L. c. with § N. S. A. J. 34:15-7. is for payable personal of” injuries “by accident out of in the em and course arising in ployment. of the and Interpretation out phrases “arising the course of” was first in employment Bryant, enunciated Fissell, v. Adm’x L. 84 N. This 1913). J. 72 Ct. (Sup. Court has continued to through years acknowledge Bryant v. The Great Atlantic pronouncement. Hornyak Co., & Tea 99, Berg 63 N. 108 J. 101 and (1973); Pacific Inc., Brothers, v.man 559, Parnes 58 N. Ham J. 563 (1971); Co., mond v. The & Great Tea N. 7, Atlantic J. Pacific 11 (1970). In Bryant the court wrote that to arise “[f]or out in the course of must it result from risk to the reasonably incidental employment.” N. L. J. further court that an accident elucidated arises “if it course while the occurs is what a man doing so employe employed may reasonably do within time which he is and at a employed, where place be may reasonably that time.” Id. 77. And so the question becomes: Did the accident occur at such a time place the employee’s activity may be to so considered be reasonably incidental and related to the the accident be employment' ? compensable should Put way, another cost of that is accident reasonably includ in the to be price able charged the employer’s product Co., Ricciardi Damar service? 45 N. J. 54, Products Justice Proctor reminded us of this consideration in Co., v. The Great & Hammond Atlantic Tea supra: Pacific compensation legislation designed place Workmen’s is the cost of injuries upon employer accidental which are work-related who operating can make these funds available out expenses, of his always goal kept considering legislative be in mind when must patterns presented. N. [56 14] factual J. at will that consumers probably The economic reality called or in for the part employer’s op whole upon pay Morris v. Hermann Forwarding erating expenses. 197-198 this Court quoted approvingly from Glasser v. Youth So. 1951), 2d Shop, (Fla. that the of a workers’ act is purpose industry expense on of in- ‘to shoulder incident to the hazards dustry public support ; lift in- the burden to those capacitated by industry pass ultimately on consumers and to to the carry products expense.’ industry industry must Since *7 burden, then causal there must be some connection between injury, origin and the had its in some it must have risk incident fol- to or connected with the or have consequence. lowed from it as a natural a particular Thus the cost of accident we should ask whether the consuming public is one that upon should be imposed as an To resolve expense. prob- appropriate production consider, to determine and lem, attention should be directed alia, inter outside whether the accident occurred regular to the hours, and, so, work if whether that was due on the happened demand or whether request; not, if whether the had and, employer employer’s premises, elsewhere; that that held what re- directed activity if the event with the lationship, any, employment. had adverted to the beneficent pur- The courts have frequently to judicial Act support of the Workers’ pose the cost of in- have imposed which interpretations will those ex- which presumably pass on institutions juries Another con- equally important on to penditures consumers. costs of workers’ sideration, however, is that the compensation in some enter- have become substantial factor insurance have from this to an extent that some departed prises have been from establishing and others deterred plants state of the Governor’s Economic Recovery here. The Report Commission, of cost workers’ noting high insurance,1 that consider Legislature has recommended the cost factor when the act “with the revising objective of Governor's becoming with other states.” competitive Kal Economic Commission Recovery Report (1976). Climate, ter, New Jersey’s Star-Ledger, Business Sunday 26, 1, 1, June col. it was that which reported Jersey’s New for has de competitive position industry teriorated in relation to substantially other states due Accord, part to workers’ “costly compensation program.” The Fantus A Research Company, Program Strengthen New Position Jersey’s Competitive Business and Indus 36-38 try Robert R. Heckman, of Chairman Rating Inspection Bureau New Jersey, reported insurance company losses for underwriting workers’ compensation in New coverages increased Jersey from $30 million in 1975 $53 million in One cause 1976. of that increase is ever com broadening scope workers’ pensation applied benefits the courts in cases. marginal Star-Ledger, July 1, at 30, col. So-called beneficent purposes the act not in fact may be in the best interests of employees, particularly if costs become production such that the work force must be reduced. case, the facts it
Turning indisputable some two shooting happened blocks city away from the area, work a place not under the employer’s *8 control. The employee, having punched out at the job site was not leaving, before in his engaged work at the time of the incident. He was not under the direction or acting super- vision He employer. voluntarily decided to eat at a luncheonette in no way related to his employment. To con- tend that the employment relationship was established because nourishment benefitted the employer is a thin Jersey highest 1New ranks third in the nation in cost of Workers’ Insurance. Recovery Governor's Economic Com Report app., C-52, mission at D-65 — a including good for almost anything, indeed
thread have that effect. bath, would or a warm night’s sleep Bryant, Jacobs, issue, relying upon The ultimate as Justice Fissell, the employer’s in is whether Hornyak, Adm’x stated to such in with- respect absorb the costs enterprise should at Is the shooting petitioner 63 N. J. juries. break, luncheonette, lunch some distance away so related to his intimately from the place as a these hospital expenses porter be Martland Medical Center and its should borne ? those do not have a injuries sufficient patients opinion my to be employment work connection to be deemed related. Johns-Manville, See Strzelecki v.
(dissenting opinion).
It leads Eornyah be contended may logically following so, That may this case. compensability although some factual exist. and Functionally differences logically Eornyah, service to com- although paying lip rule, has it. I cannot with its ing agTee holding.2 obliterated I would reverse. Clifford joins
Justice this opinion. Hughes Moun- and Justices Justice For affirmance —Chief Handler- —5. Sullivan, tain, Pashman Schreiber —2. Clifford For reversal—Justices Horny Larson, ak, The Law vigorous see criticism 2For a 1977). (Supp. 15.53 § Workmen’s