Jumpp v. City of Ventnor
177 N.J. 470, 2003 N.J. LEXIS 872, 828 A.2d 905 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained by an off-premises employee during a purely personal errand is not compensable under the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act, even if the employer permits the errand. To be compensable, the injury must occur while the employee is engaged in the direct performance of duties assigned or directed by the employer.
Facts:
- Robert Jumpp, Jr. was employed by the City of Ventnor as a pumping station operator.
- His job required him to travel in a city-owned vehicle to monitor six different water and sewerage facilities throughout the city twice daily.
- Jumpp's supervisor, Thomas Klein, knew about and permitted him to make brief stops for personal needs, including a daily stop at a local post office to check his personal mail.
- The post office was located along the route to one of his job sites.
- On May 5, 1998, while on his route between work sites, Jumpp parked his city vehicle and went into the post office to get his personal mail.
- As he was returning to his vehicle, Jumpp slipped and fell on a driveway, suffering a fractured pelvis and severe leg injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Jumpp filed a claim with the New Jersey Division of Workers' Compensation.
- The City of Ventnor filed an answer denying the claim's compensability.
- The workers' compensation judge conducted a trial solely on the issue of compensability and issued an order dismissing Jumpp's claim.
- Jumpp appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the workers' compensation judge's ruling.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification to review the Appellate Division's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury sustained by an off-premises employee while performing a permitted, but purely personal, errand during the workday arise out of and in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes under N.J.S.A. 34:15-36?
Opinions:
Majority - Poritz, C.J.
No. An injury sustained by an off-premises employee during a purely personal errand does not arise out of and in the course of employment. The 1979 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act require an off-premises employee to be engaged in the 'direct performance of duties assigned or directed by the employer' to be covered. While minor deviations for personal comfort incidental to employment (e.g., coffee breaks, phone calls) remain compensable, a distinct personal errand like retrieving mail is not part of the direct performance of work. The court's objective is to treat on-premises and off-premises employees alike; an office worker who leaves the premises to go to the post office would not be covered, and therefore an off-premises employee who does the same is also not covered. The employer's mere permission to run the errand does not transform it into a work-related duty.
Dissenting - Long and Zazzali, JJ.
Yes. The majority misapplies the minor deviation rule, which survived the 1979 amendments. Jumpp's brief and routine stop at the post office, which was on his work route and permitted by his employer, was an insubstantial deviation from his employment. This situation is analogous to an on-premises employee walking across the room to retrieve a personal letter from an office mail basket, which would be a compensable injury. By denying compensation, the majority creates a stricter standard for off-premises employees, contrary to its stated goal of treating them equally. The case should be reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the 'direct performance of duties' standard for off-premises employees under the 1979 amendments to the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act. It narrows the pre-1979 'minor deviation' rule by drawing a sharp distinction between incidental personal comfort acts (which remain compensable) and distinct personal errands (which are not), even if permitted by the employer. The ruling reinforces the legislative intent to curtail compensation for off-premises accidents and establishes a stricter framework for analyzing such cases. This precedent directly impacts any traveling employee who mixes personal tasks with work duties, limiting employer liability for injuries occurring during such personal activities.
