Binet v. Ocean Gate Bd. of Ed., A--880

• Citation: 218 A.2d 869,90 N.J.Super. 571
• Decision Date: 29 March 1966
• Docket Number: No. A--880,A--880
• Parties: Gail D. BINET and Bryan K. Binet, Petitioners-Appellants, v. OCEAN GATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent-Appellee. Michael G. F. BINET, by his mother, Mrs. Charlene Binet Albrecht, natural guardian and next friend, Petitioner-Appellant, v. OCEAN GATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

Page 571

90 N.J.Super. 571

218 A.2d 869

Gail D. BINET and Bryan K. Binet, Petitioners-Appellants, v. OCEAN GATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent-Appellee.

Michael G. F. BINET, by his mother, Mrs. Charlene Binet

Albrecht, natural guardian and next friend, Petitioner-Appellant, v. OCEAN GATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. A--880.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued Jan. 3, 1966.

Decided March 29, 1966.

Louis C. Jacobson, Newark, for appellants (F. Frederick Perone, Atlantic City, attorney).

Robert H. Steedle, Atlantic City, for respondent (Lloyd, Megargee, Steedle, Weinstein & Horn, Atlantic City, attorneys).

Before Judges GAULKIN, LABRECQUE and BROWN.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Ocean County Court which reversed an award to them by the Division of Workmen's Compensation resulting from the death of Ronald J. Binet, an employee of respondent Ocean Gate Board of Education, in an automobile accident on May 5, 1961.

Decedent, a principal and teacher, had attended a meeting of the school P.T.A. on the evening of the accident and had stopped off at a local tavern after the meeting en route to his home. The facts are not in substantial dispute. Each tribunal concluded that intoxication was not shown to be the sole proximate cause of the accident. Our own examination of the record satisfies us that this determination was not unwarranted. Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599, 210 A.2d 753, (1965). However, the County Court judge held that compensation should be denied because

'The P.T.A. meeting was at the school building and while it occurred after regular working hours, it did not subject the teacher to extra travel risks because his route of travel would be the same, down Route #9, whether at close of school or at close of the P.T.A. meeting. * * * the special service was not 'out of the ordinary' nor was it 'unusual' and it cannot be said that it was not contemplated under the terms of the employment although it was not compulsory.'

In so holding, the court erred.

Injury is compensable where it is sustained in the performance of a special service even though such service is not 'out of the ordinary,' 'unusual' or the source of extra risk. The fact of special service, Per se, presents an exception to the 'going and coming' rule:

'* * * where an employee pursues a special errand or mission, as distinguished from reporting to the regular place of his day's work, he is within the protection of the statute during the travel to and from the scene of his special errand. Hence if the point of departure or return is the employee's home, the travel is covered.' Ricciardi v. Damar Products Co., 45 N.J. 54, 61, 211 A.2d 347, 350 (1965).

In Bobertz v. Board of Education of Hillside Twp., 134 N.J.L. 444, 48 A.2d 847 (Sup.Ct.1946), reversed on other grounds 135 N.J.L. 555, 52 A.2d 827 (E. & A. 1947), the court said:

"An exception to the *...