SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

New Jersey Case Summary

Vola v. City of Northfield
No. A1627-23
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Decided: May 14, 2025

When a petitioner sustains injuries in an employer-authorized vehicle in transit to an employer-authorized job site, the petitioner may be acting within the scope of his/her employment, and the special mission doctrine applies.

Background:

The Petitioner, a police officer, sustained an injury when his police car was in a motor vehicle accident while on a volunteer extra traffic duty assignment. He was directing traffic during a tree-trimming project. The accident occurred while the Petitioner was following the tree company’s trucks to its first assignment site. The Petitioner filed claim petitions against both the police department and tree company for injuries sustained in the accident. The tree company denied that it was a joint employer, and moved to dismiss the claim against it. The Judge denied the motion, finding that the special mission doctrine applied from the minute that Claimant left police headquarters in a marked vehicle. The tree company appealed.

Holding:

The Court held that when a petitioner sustains injuries in an employer-authorized vehicle in transit to an employer-authorized job site, the Petitioner is acting within the scope of his/her employment, and the special mission doctrine applies. The Court applied Keim v. Above All Termite & Pest Control to determine that the Petitioner was within the scope of his employment when he was injured. The special mission doctrine applied because The Petitioner was in a vehicle authorized by his employer, and he was operating it for business that was expressly authorized by the employer. The fact that the accident prevented the Petitioner from arriving at the first assignment site was of no consequence because the doctrine’s applicability rested on the purpose of the Petitioner’s travel and assignment.

Takeaway:

This holding appears to impose broad application of the special mission doctrine when an employee is traveling in an employer-authorized vehicle. However, the nature of the assignment may play an undiscussed role in the doctrine’s application here. For travel time to be included as part of a special mission under the doctrine, the travel must be “so integral” to the job itself that it constitutes as “a part of the overall mission.” Here, the mission’s purpose was traffic control, which is a task that must be performed on the street with motor vehicles. Subsequent litigation about the applicability of the doctrine for different missions and injuries is foreseeable.

Questions about this case can be directed to Caroline Gentilcore or Maxwell Klenk at 267-861-7596 or cgentilcore@tthlaw.com.