Williams v. Remco Industries
| Citation | 288 A.2d 586,118 N.J.Super. 481 |
| Parties | Mabel WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REMCO INDUSTRIES, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 14 March 1972 |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
Samuel E. Bass, Newark, for appellant (Freeman & Bass, Newark, attorneys).
Roland Vreeland, Livingston, for respondent (Connolly, Vreeland & Connolly, Livingston, attorneys).
Before Judges LEWIS, HALPERN and LORA.
Petitioner, an employee of respondent Remco at its Harrison, New Jersey, plant, was injured while on a Public Service but returning from work to her home in Newark. Her petition for workmen's compensation was denied by the Division of Workmen's Compensation and the County Court, essentially because it was not within any of the exceptions carved out of the 'going and coming' rule which was still viable in New Jersey. We agree that the rule is still in force in New Jersey, but conclude that the rule is inapplicable to the particular facts in this case.
The record discloses the following facts which are not in substantial dispute:
(1) For many years, respondent operated a large industrial complex in Newark where it employed many persons who, for the most part, were unskilled help used on an assembly line operation, and who lived in the low-cost housing areas of Newark.
(2) About 1963 it relocated its plant and operations to Harrison, New Jersey.
(3) In order to retain the employees needed for its operation, and to get that type of help from Newark, arrangements were made with Public Service to pick up Remco's employees at several designated assembly areas in Newark and bring them, nonstop, to its plant in Harrison. At the end of the workday, Public Service picked up the employees at the plant and returned them, nonstop to the same assembly areas in Newark. Presumably no one but Remco employees were transported in these special buses during such trips.
(4) The employees were required to pay 25 cents per ride. For a short period during 1965 and 1969 when Remco encountered difficulties in obtaining a sufficient number of employees, it arranged with Public Service to establish auxiliary bus routes and guaranteed Public Service the sum of $40 per bus, per round trip.
(5) Approximaely 1,200 Remco employees utilized these buses on a daily basis, and they constituted about 45% Of Remco's entire working force.
(6) Seven or eight Public Service buses were used daily, and each bus had a printed sign on the front windshield with the word 'Remco.' Public Service and Remco were in touch with each other as to the time and number of buses needed because of work schedules, holidays and layoffs.
(7) Public Service had obtained approval from the New Jersey Department of Public Utilities to operate its buses directly to Remco's plant.
(8) Petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hornyak v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co.
...56 N.J. at 11:12, 264 A.2d 204. See Bergman v. Parnes Brothers, Inc., 58 N.J. 559, 279 A.2d 660 (1971); Williams v. Remco Industries, 118 N.J.Super. 481, 288 A.2d 586 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 61 N.J. 163, 293 A.2d 393 (1972); DiNardo v. Newark Bd. of Ed., 118 N.J.Super. 536, 289 A.2d 259......
-
Mangigian v. Franz Warner Assoc., Inc.
...N.J. 7, 11, 264 A.2d 204 (1970); Ricciardi v. Damar Products Co., 45 N.J. 54, 61, 211 A.2d 347 (1965); Williams v. Remco Industries, 118 N.J.Super. 481, 484, 288 A.2d 586 (App.Div.1972), certif. den. 61 N.J. 163, 293 A.2d 393 (1972); DiNardo v. Newark Bd. of Ed., 118 N.J.Super. 536, 539, 28......
-
Mayer v. John E. Runnells Hospital
...279 A.2d 660 (1971); Pearce v. N.J. Highway Authority, 122 N.J.Super. 342, 300 A.2d 358 (App.Div.1973); Williams v. Remco Industries, 118 N.J.Super. 481, 288 A.2d 586 (App.Div.), certif. den. 61 N.J. 163, 293 A.2d 393 (1972). Workmen's compensation was not meant to be sporadic in effect and......
-
Pearce v. New Jersey Highway Authority
...shape and dimension, in part at least, in cases where the employer provided the actual transportation (Williams v. Remco Industries, 118 N.J.Super. 481, 288 A.2d 586 (App.Div.), certif. den. 61 N.J. 163, 293 A.2d 393 But we do not believe any of these features to be an invariable requiremen......