NJ’s Appellate Court Upholds the Special Mission Rule During a Commute with Violation and Deviation Defenses

New Jersey’s Appellate Court recently issued an unpublished decision in favor of a Petitioner on a case involving the Special Mission rule and a violation of a positive work order in the case of Sciver v. Jersey Mechanical Contractors, Inc., No. A-3524-20, 11/15/2022.

The Petitioner worked for the Respondent as an apprentice pipefitter under a union agreement. His job duties generally included delivering B-Tanks to various job sites in his work truck. The day before his injury, he stopped at a job site as part of his job duties where the foreman asked for a B-Tank. The Petitioner had not been instructed to deliver a B-Tank to that location that day. At the end of his work day, he dropped off his company car and “acting on his own initiative,” loaded a B-Tank into his personal vehicle with the intention of delivering it to the foreman. The Petitioner was never directed by the employer to deliver this B-Tank. It was a violation of company policy and his Union agreement to use his personal vehicle for work duties and also to store a B-Tank in a confined space.

On his way to work the next morning, the Petitioner forgot about the B-Tank in his car and passed the delivery location he had intended on. On this same commute to work, he was asked to pick up and provide a ride to a high-ranking employee. En route to the co-worker and his job, the Petitioner heard the tank hissing, got out of his car, and the resulting explosion and injury occurred.

The Judge of Compensation held the accident was compensable under the Special Mission exception to the coming and going rule because of the B-Tank delivery effort and because he was directed to pick up a co-worker on his way to work.

The Appellate Court upheld the Judge’s decision finding there was substantial credible evidence to support the Judge’s findings of a Special Mission to pick up the co-worker. The Appellate Court did not address whether or not the intended B-Tank delivery efforts constituted a Special Mission. The Court found the Special Mission rule applies in this case because Petitioner was compelled by the employer to participate in an activity, i.e. picking up his co-worker, and was injured during that participation.

The Respondent argued a deviation and violation of company policy due to his B-Tank activities; however, the trial Judge rejected the argument his actions were a “willful failure to follow safety directions,” and the Appellate Court did not disagree.?

From a respondent’s perspective, the two most important future considerations from this case are:

1. The Special Mission exception may be extended to circumstances that deviate from the actual task the employee was compelled or directed to perform. In this case, the Petitioner had stopped his Special Mission travel to pick up his co-worker in order to investigate the circumstances stemming from his own initiative with the B-Tank at the time the accident occurred. The Court did not address this deviation but simply found he was on a Special Mission when the accident occurred even though he had suspended his travel mission beforehand.?
2. The courts look broadly and inclusively at actions and directives that constitute a Special Mission in order to find an accident compensable despite the commute to/from work.

Follow Carpenter, McCadden & Lane, LLP for the latest workers' compensation legal updates in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and West Virginia.

#NJworkerscomp #workerscompensation