Court Opinion

ID: 9701958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:47:16.188367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:31.424734
License: Public Domain

*595PORITZ, C.J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s legal analysis and its conclusion that Helen Kasper’s injury occurred “at a place of employment.” However, I cannot accept the majority’s conclusion that Ms. Kasper was injured “during, and as a result of the performance of [her] regular or assigned duties.” N.J.S.A. 18A:66-39(c). Ms. Kasper was injured as she climbed the front steps to the school. The majority holds that the injury occurred “during and as a result of the performance of [her] regular or assigned duties” because her presence on the premises was “mandated.” Ante at 586, 754 A.2d at 537. In my view, Ms. Kasper was neither engaged in her teaching responsibilities, In re Carlson, 174 N.J.Super. 603, 607, 417 A.2d 103 (App.Div.1980) (holding that statute covers teacher injured after bell had rung and when teachers required to perform certain functions), nor taking any steps preparatory to carrying out those responsibilities, Pollara v. Board of Trustees, PFRS, 183 N.J.Super. 505, 511, 444 A.2d 616 (App.Div.1982) (holding that statute covers police officer injured while performing duties in preparation for beginning of shift). To find otherwise effectively writes the language, “during and as a result of the performance of ... regular or assigned duties” out of the statute. See Paper Mill Playhouse v. Millbum, 95 N.J. 503, 521, 472 A.2d 517 (1984) (directing court to avoid construction of statute that renders any part of it inoperative, superfluous, or meaningless).
Accordingly, I dissent.
For reversal and remandment — Justices O’HERN, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO and LaVECCHIA — 6.
For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ — 1.