Cooper v. Barnickel Enterprises, Inc., Docket No. A-1813-08T31813-08T (App. Div., decided January 13, 2010)

A recent Appellate Division ruling offers strong incentive for employers to provide coffee to their employees on-site.

The petitioner was a master plumber and foreman with the respondent, Barnickel Enterprises, Inc. As a privilege of his employment, the petitioner was authorized by the respondent to utilize a company vehicle to drive to and from home and between job sites. At about 11:15 A.M. on Saturday, February 8, 2003, the petitioner reported to his union hall in Winslow Township, New Jersey, to discuss with one of his union instructors the plans for a new job which was to start the following workday. Upon arriving at the union hall, the petitioner discovered that the instructor was conducting a class with a group of students and was unavailable to speak with him. The petitioner decided to take a coffee break and return to the union hall at lunchtime to speak with his instructor. As the union hall provided no coffee to its members on Saturdays, the petitioner drove his company vehicle to a delicatessen approximately five miles from the union hall to obtain a cup of coffee. While on his way to the delicatessen, the petitioner was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he sustained multiple compound comminuted fractures of the left arm and both legs. The petitioner subsequently filed a claim with the Division of Workers' Compensation for injuries arising out of his motor vehicle accident. The respondent denied the claim on the grounds that the petitioner, irrespective of the fact that he was an off-site employee utilizing a company vehicle, was involved in a personal errand, wholly unrelated to his work activities, at the time of his motor vehicle accident. As such, the respondent argued, the petitioner's injuries could not be said to have arisen out of or in the course of his employment. At trial, The judge of compensation found that the petitioner was engaged in the kind of brief activity which, if embarked on by an on-site employee working under set time and place limitations, would be compensable. Accordingly, the judge of compensation found the petitioner's motor vehicle accident to be compensable and awarded him 100% permanent and total disability. Although the petitioner's disability was uncontested, the respondent appealed the judge of compensation's finding of compensability. In affirming the judge of compensation's ruling, the Appellate Division relied on Jumpp v. City of Ventnor, 177 N.J. 470 (2003). In Jumpp, an off-site city employee was permitted to make brief stops at local establishments while traveling between job sites in a city-owned vehicle. He was, nevertheless, denied compensation for a fall suffered when he parked and left his vehicle with the motor running to retrieve personal mail from a local post office located on the route to one of his job sites. The Jumpp Court held that: "[W]hen an employee is assigned to work at locations away from the employer's place of employment, eligibility for workers' compensation benefits generally should be based on a finding that the employee is performing his or her prescribed job duties at the time of the injury. However, this rule does allow compensation for minor deviations from employment. The test of whether a minor deviation is compensable depends on whether that employee has embarked on a personal errand that would have been compensable if carried out by an on-premises employee." Based on the Jumpp ruling, the Appellate Division concluded that the petitioner was in the course of his employment at the time of his motor vehicle accident. "Petitioner was an off-site employee," the Appellate Division reasoned, "who, facing an extended wait to consult with an expert concerning a work-related issue, was injured while driving for a cup of coffee. Accidents occurring during coffee breaks for off-site employees are minor deviations from employment which permit recovery of workers' compensation benefits." The Appellate Division characterized the distance the petitioner traveled to the delicatessen as reasonable given the rural nature of the community in Winslow Township and the time the petitioner had to wait to speak with his instructor. "It cannot be expected," the Appellate Division concluded, "that [Petitioner] should stand like a statue or remain at the union hall with nothing to do for such a period, or be limited to take his coffee break at the closest location."

Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2010