## Facts

- John B. White worked as a newspaper route delivery driver beginning in January 1971, using his car to pick up about 200 newspapers and deliver them on a 20–25 mile route in rural Atlantic County, usually finishing by 7:00 a.m.
- On April 13, 1971, White left home around 5:00 a.m. to begin his work-related trip.
- While still near his residence in Atlantic City, White picked up two hitchhikers who asked for a ride to a bus station.
- Taking them to the bus station required a short detour from his ordinary path, but the trip would not appreciably delay or extend his normal travel.
- The hitchhikers assaulted and robbed White, causing serious injuries.
- White filed a workers’ compensation claim under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.
- The employer denied liability, arguing (1) no employment relationship existed, (2) the going-and-coming rule barred recovery, and (3) under the “hitchhiker doctrine” from Beh v. Breeze Corp., voluntarily picking up hitchhikers bars compensation.
- The Judge of Compensation found an employment relationship and rejected the going-and-coming defense, but dismissed the claim based on Beh; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether White’s injuries arose out of and in the course of employment under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 despite occurring during travel.
2. Whether the going-and-coming rule barred compensation for injuries sustained while traveling to begin a delivery route.
3. Whether voluntarily picking up hitchhikers automatically constitutes a personal deviation that breaks the course of employment and bars compensation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and the Judge of Compensation.
- The court accepted the determinations that White was an employee and that his travel was work-related for purposes of course-of-employment analysis.
- The court rejected the categorical “hitchhiker doctrine” and held that picking up hitchhikers does not, by itself, remove an employee from the course of employment.
- White’s injuries were held compensable.

## Legal Principles

- The Workers’ Compensation Act is construed liberally to effect its remedial purposes; close questions about coverage are resolved with attention to statutory aims.
- For employees whose duties require travel, work-related travel may be treated as within the course of employment, subject to exclusion only for substantial personal deviations.
- Whether a deviation takes an employee outside the course of employment depends on the degree and nature of the deviation; minor detours generally do not sever coverage.
- A per se rule that injuries following from voluntarily picking up hitchhikers are noncompensable is inconsistent with a fact-specific course-of-employment inquiry.

## Conclusion

The court held that a route driver’s brief, non-substantial detour to give hitchhikers a ride did not automatically terminate the employment connection; accordingly, injuries from an assault during that detour arose out of and in the course of employment and were compensable.


White v. Atl. City Press, 64 N.J. 128, 313 A.2d 197 (N.J. 1973)