## Facts

- Saint Michael’s Medical Center owned and operated an employee-only dormitory on its hospital complex in Newark.
- Jane Doe, a hospital medical technologist, lived in the dormitory under a written lease and paid rent via payroll deduction.
- Residence in the dormitory was not required as a condition of employment, but it provided affordable housing and was available only to employees.
- On Saturday, July 22, 1978, while off duty and not on call, Doe was sexually assaulted and robbed by an intruder in her third-floor dormitory room.
- Doe sued the hospital in negligence, alleging inadequate security for the dormitory.
- The hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint as barred by the Act’s exclusivity provision; Doe appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether injuries from a third-party sexual assault and robbery in an employer-owned, employee-only dormitory, occurring while the employee was off duty, arose “out of and in the course of employment” under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.
2. If so, whether N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 made workers’ compensation the employee’s exclusive remedy, barring a common-law negligence action against the employer.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the negligence action.
- The court held Doe’s injuries arose out of and in the course of employment for workers’ compensation purposes.
- Because the claim was compensable under the Act, workers’ compensation was Doe’s exclusive remedy against the hospital.

## Legal Principles

- When an employee’s injury arises out of and in the course of employment, the Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy against the employer, precluding common-law tort claims. N.J.S.A. 34:15-7, -8.
- The Act is construed liberally to provide coverage, even where an employee argues against compensability to preserve a tort action.
- Under the premises rule, injuries occurring on property controlled by the employer may be within the course of employment, especially where access is restricted to employees.
- Under the mutual benefit doctrine, employer-provided housing restricted to employees may be sufficiently tied to the employment relationship because it benefits both employee (housing) and employer (recruitment, retention, availability).
- Off-duty status is not dispositive where the employee’s presence on employer-controlled premises is a foreseeable incident of the employment arrangement.
- Criminal assaults by third parties may be compensable when employment conditions or the employment environment create the setting that exposes the employee to the risk.

## Conclusion

Because Doe’s presence in the employer-controlled, employee-only dormitory was an incident of the employment relationship and conferred mutual benefit, her off-duty assault-related injuries were held to arise out of and in the course of employment; the Workers’ Compensation Act therefore barred her negligence action against the hospital.


Doe v. Saint Michael's Med. Ctr. of Newark, 184 N.J. Super. 1, 445 A.2d 40 (App. Div. 1982)