## Facts

- Raymond J. Thornton worked as a production foreman for Chamberlain Manufacturing Corporation.
- His supervisory duties included enforcing safety rules, including requiring employees to wear safety glasses.
- Thornton repeatedly reprimanded and reported an employee, Sozio, for failing to wear safety glasses.
- During a reprimand, Sozio threatened Thornton, stating he would “take care” of Thornton’s eyes later.
- Nine days after Thornton left the job, he encountered Sozio at a bar and was attacked as he was leaving.
- Thornton suffered severe injuries, including total loss of vision in his right eye.
- The assault was motivated by hostility stemming from Thornton’s enforcement of workplace safety rules.
- Workers’ compensation tribunals denied benefits on the ground that the off-premises assault occurred after the employment relationship ended.

## Issues

1. Whether an off-premises assault occurring after employment ends can satisfy the requirement that an injury arise “in the course of” employment under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.
2. Whether an intentional, retaliatory assault motivated by the claimant’s performance of assigned duties constitutes an injury “arising out of” employment under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed and held the injury compensable.
- The court found the assault causally connected to Thornton’s assigned supervisory duties, satisfying the “arising out of” element.
- The court rejected a rigid time-and-place limitation on “in the course of” employment where the operative risk was generated by the employment relationship.
- The court ordered entry of an award of workers’ compensation benefits in Thornton’s favor.

## Legal Principles

- To be compensable under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7, an injury must be (1) by accident, (2) arising out of, and (3) arising in the course of employment.
- An intentional assault may constitute a compensable “accident” when the assault is prompted by work-related motives rather than personal reasons unrelated to employment.
- “Arising out of” employment is satisfied when the employment creates the risk of the assault, including retaliatory hostility produced by performance of assigned duties.
- “In the course of” employment is not limited to strict workplace boundaries of time and location when the injury results from a work-generated risk that remains operative beyond the employee’s last day or the employer’s premises.
- The Workers’ Compensation Act is construed broadly to effect its remedial purpose, particularly where the true source of the harm is the employment relationship.

## Conclusion

The court held that a retaliatory assault by a former coworker was compensable because it directly flowed from the claimant’s job-required supervision and discipline, and the statutory “course of employment” element was satisfied despite the assault occurring off-premises and after the employment ended.


Thornton v. Chamberlain Mfg. Corp., 62 N.J. 235, 300 A.2d 146 (1973)