Going & Coming Rule
NJ Superior Court – Appellate Division
Scott v. Foodarama Supermarkets
398 N.J. Super. 441 (App. Div. 2008)
Decided February 27, 2008
Reversing the decision of the workers’ compensation judge, the Appellate Division held that the “travel-time” exception to the going-and-coming rule does not apply where a salaried employee is reimbursed for gas, tolls, and wear and tear on his vehicle, but is not paid wages for the time of his commute to and from work
Acikgoz v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth.
398 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2008)
Decided January 23, 2008
The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the workers’ compensation judge who found that the petitioner was not in the course of employment at the time of a car accident which occurred after he left the Turnpike Authority’s premises and employee parking lot, was traveling on one of several roads available for ingress and egress, and already had started on his normal commute home.
Division Reserved Decisions
McQuaid v. Camden County Bd. of Social Services
09-31856; decided June 14, 2013 by the Honorable George H. Gangloff, Jr., J.W.C.
Petitioner claimed that his slip and fall accident on the way to work occurred on property controlled by his employer. The judge, however, dismissed petitioner’s claim upon finding that the accident occurred after the petitioner parked his car in a public parking lot and was walking on a public sidewalk not under the employer’s control when he fell.
Sprigg v. Telsource Corp.
04-16015; decided May 25, 2005 by the Hon. Cosmo A. Giovinazzi, III, J.W.C.
Petitioner filed a motion for medical benefits based on an accident that occurred while he was driving home from a remote worksite in a company vehicle. Respondent denied compensability because petitioner was going home when the accident occurred. Based on the particular facts here, however, the Workers’ Compensation Judge determined that petitioner’s accident was compensable under two exceptions to the “going and coming” rule - the “special mission” and “travel time” exceptions.
Delisi v. Wolfington Body Co.
03-2854 decided on March 5, 2004 by the Honorable Emille R. Cox, J.W.C.
On respondent’s motion, the compensation judge dismissed the petitioner’s claim petition after finding that it did not fall within any of the recognized exceptions to the “going and coming rule” (e.g., “special mission” or “travel time” exceptions). Even though the car accident occurred at a point in time when the petitioner would normally be working for the respondent, the judge found that she was not working for the respondent as a bus driver at the time of her accident and was merely running late when coming into work by car that day.
Bruening v. International Total Services, Inc.
01-013804, decided April 24, 2003 by the Honorable Cosmo A. Giovinazzi, J.W.C.
The workers’ compensation judge dismissed the petitioner’s claim petition finding that the injury he suffered in a slip and fall accident in a parking lot, open to employees and the general public, did not occur during the course of employment.
Ceres v. PNC Bank
00-14168, decided October 6, 2000 by the Honorable Neale F. Hooley, J.W.C.
The petitioner was injured after slipping and falling in the parking lot of the respondent’s place of employment. Since the respondent had requested employees to park in certain areas for business reasons, the judge found the injury compensable.
Williams v. Crestbury Apartments/Interstat Reality Management
96-488, decided July 23, 1999 by the Honorable Shelley B. Lashman, J.W.C.
The workers’ compensation judge dismissed the claim petitioner finding that although the accident occurred while petitioner was on route to her workplace to supervise a weekend event, the accident was not compensable under the “going and coming” rule.