## Facts

- A corporate attorney employed by New Jersey Bell regularly worked long hours at the office and routinely took substantial legal work home, maintaining a desk and small legal library in his bedroom.
- After leaving the employer’s Newark office, he drove home on his customary route and was killed in a three-car collision in Newark.
- At the time of the accident, he was carrying a briefcase containing work-related materials and was under pressure to meet a deadline in an antitrust matter.
- The employer knew the decedent took work home; a supervisor testified that attorneys were assigned extensive reading and often had to complete it outside work hours to meet expected professional standards.
- The employer did not reimburse commuting expenses, and there was no evidence of any deviation from the usual route home.
- The decedent’s widow filed a dependency claim for workers’ compensation death benefits; the Judge of Compensation dismissed the claim as barred by the going-and-coming rule.

## Issues

1. Whether a fatal accident occurring during an employee’s normal trip home can “arise out of and in the course of employment” when the employee regularly performed substantial, employer-expected work at home and was traveling with work materials.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal and held the claim compensable.
- The court concluded that the decedent’s home functioned as a regular, expected worksite, so the trip home could be treated as work-connected travel rather than a purely personal commute.
- The matter was remanded for entry of an award consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A compensable workers’ compensation injury must “arise out of and in the course of employment.”
- Under the going-and-coming rule, injuries sustained while traveling to and from work are ordinarily not compensable.
- An exception applies where special circumstances show the travel furthered the employer’s business or where employment conditions effectively extend the work environment beyond the employer’s premises.
- Regular, substantial work performed at home with the employer’s knowledge and acceptance may extend the course of employment to the home, converting the trip to the home-worksite into work-related travel.

## Conclusion

Because the decedent’s job demands and the employer’s expectations made substantial home work a regular part of his duties, and the employer knew and accepted that practice, the employment environment extended to the home; the fatal trip home therefore fell within an exception to the going-and-coming rule and was compensable.


McKeever v. N.J. Bell Tel. Co., 179 N.J. Super. 29 (App. Div. 1981)