Hille v. Gerald Records, Inc., 23 N.Y.2d 135 (1968)
An employee’s injuries sustained while commuting are compensable under worker’s compensation when the employee’s home functions as a regular place of employment, thereby establishing a ‘mixed’ or ‘dual purpose’ for the commute.
Summary
Gerald Hille, president of Gerald Records, died in a car accident while driving home from a late-night recording session. The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded benefits to his family, finding that his work required him to be both an inside and outside worker and that the accident arose from his employment. The Appellate Division reversed, finding insufficient evidence that he had work materials with him that night. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Hille’s regular practice of working at home with company equipment transformed his home into a place of employment, making his commute compensable under the “mixed purpose” doctrine.
Facts
Gerald Hille, president of Gerald Records, lived in New Jersey and worked in New York City. His duties included arranging recordings and editing tapes. On August 31, 1962, Hille finished a recording session around 2:30 a.m. At approximately 4:30 a.m., his car hit a utility pole in New Jersey, resulting in his death. The company’s director of sales and promotion indicated that it was part of Hille’s job to take tapes home to listen for playbacks and mistakes, and the company’s vice-president corroborated that Hille regularly listened to and corrected recordings at his home, which was equipped with a company-owned tape recorder.
Procedural History
The Workmen’s Compensation Board initially awarded benefits to Hille’s family. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence that Hille had tapes in his possession on the night of the accident. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of an employee in an automobile accident on his way home from work arose out of and in the course of his employment, specifically when the employee regularly performs work-related tasks at home using company equipment.
Holding
Yes, because the employee’s home had effectively become a place of employment due to the regularity and necessity of his work-related activities conducted there, thus the commute to and from became part of his employment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that while Hille was not strictly an “outside employee,” he was privileged to perform his tasks in various locations, including his home. Applying the “mixed” or “dual purpose” trip doctrine from Matter of Marks v. Gray, the court emphasized that a commute is compensable if there is either a specific work assignment at the end of the trip or a regular pattern of work at home that transforms the home into a place of employment. The court noted that the quantity and regularity of work performed at home, the presence of work equipment, and special circumstances making it necessary to work at home are key factors. The court found “ample evidence from which the board could permissibly find that he actually used his home as ‘a place of employment’ to carry on his job.” The court distinguished this case from situations involving professionals who occasionally bring work home, cautioning against a “gradual erosion” of the “going and coming” rule. Here, the record showed that Hille regularly worked on tapes at home, sometimes with another employee, using a company-owned recorder, and that this practice was necessary due to his irregular hours and the custom in the industry. As such, his commute met the test of the “mixed” or “dual” purpose doctrine, making his death compensable.