Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yorkin v. Volvo Distributing Co.

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division


Decided: August 10, 1976.

DAVID YORKIN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
VOLVO DISTRIBUTING CO., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

Fritz, Seidman and Milmed.

Per Curiam

[143 NJSuper Page 475]

This is an appeal by an employer from a determination of compensability in the Division of Worker's Compensation.

The employee had been attending a convention in Miami Beach, Florida. He did not return to his home or the place of his employment in New Jersey following the termination of the convention on a Thursday. Instead, by special and extraordinary permission granted at his request, he was permitted to remain in Florida, staying with relatives and at his own expense, until Sunday. On Saturday, as he was standing in the ocean surf, he was struck in the head by a belligerent pelican, and the injury ensued.

The judge of compensation found that petitioner was, at the time of his injury, "engaged solely in rest and recreation activities in Miami." Since the "opportunity to engage in this personal purpose arose incidentally to a business trip" (emphasis supplied), he imposed upon the employer the worker's compensation burdens of the "mutual benefit doctrine." See Salierno v. Micro Stamping Co. , 136 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div. 1975). In this we think he erred. Cavalcante v. Lockheed Electronics Co. , 85 N.J. Super. 320 (Law Div. 1964), aff'd 90 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div. 1966), and Complitano v. Steel & Alloy Tank Co. , 63 N.J. Super. 444

[143 NJSuper Page 476]

(App. Div. 1960), rev'd on dissent below, 34 N.J. 300 (1961), are wholly distinguishable on the facts. Nobody would suggest that an employee injured while on vacation would be entitled to a declaration of compensability simply because he was being refreshed to return more capably to his employment.

While an injury suffered during a period of relaxation at the convention, or during the travel to and from made necessary by the required attendance at the convention, would unquestionably ordinarily be compensable (the former activity justifying compensability on the basis of the mutual benefit doctrine), we are satisfied that a three-day personal vacation tacked on to the end of the convention removes any injury occurring during that period from the course of the employment. Cf. Hebrank v. Parsons , 88 N.J. Super. 406 (App. Div. 1965).

The judgment below is reversed and judgment is entered in favor of the respondent below. No costs.

19760810


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.