In this workers' compensation case the judge of compensation dismissed the claim petition because "the accident did not arise out of the employment * * *." The Appellate Division, in an unreported opinion, reversed and remanded on the strength of Chen v. Federated Dep't Stores, 199 N.J. Super. 336 (App.Div. 198 5). We granted certification, 102 N.J. 399 (1986), to review that determination.

(Emphasis in original)); Geary v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 120 Mont. 485, 188 P.2d 185, 190 (1947) (Adair, C.J., specially concurring) ("A worker eating lunch on the employer's premises is almost universally considered as ‘in the course of’ the employment."); Young v. Mut. Sav. Life Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 24, 27 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989) ("A lunch break is considered incidental to employment, and injuries sustained during this period are compensable under certain circumstances."); Chen v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 199 N.J.Super. 336, 489 A.2d 719, 720 (1985) ("It is generally held that injuries occurring on the employer's premises during a regular lunch hour arise in the course of employment."); Halfman v. State Acc. Ins. Fund, 49 Or.App. 23, 618 P.2d 1294, 1297-1298 (1980) (activity of going to restroom and finding something to drink during scheduled, unpaid lunch break was incidental to employment). But this is not such a close case.

In Zahner, we noted that "injuries occurring on the employer's premises during a regular lunch hour arise 'in the course of employment.'" Id. at 479 (quoting Chen v. Federated Dep't Stores Inc., 199 N.J. Super. 336, 338 (App. Div. 1985)). Because the Act constitutes humanitarian social legislation, we construe it liberally in favor of coverage, for the protection of employees.

Furthermore, the Court found that no benefit was conferred on the employer by this activity, thus clearly failing on the second prong of the analysis. In his oral opinion in this case, the compensation judge cited Chen v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 199 N.J. Super. 336 (App. Div. 1985). We ruled in Chen that an employee's injury caused by tripping on a clothes hanger that had been left on the floor and sustained while shopping in her employer's store during her lunch break was compensable.

In Zahner, we observed that "injuries occurring on the employer's premises during a regular lunch hour arise 'in the course of employment.'" Id. at 479 (quoting Chen v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 199 N.J. Super. 336, 337 (App. Div. 1985)). Because the Act is humanitarian social legislation, it is to be liberally construed in favor of coverage, for the protection of employees.

Id. at 306 (citing Coleman, 105 N.J. at 292) (quoting Howard v. Hardwood's Restaurant Co., 25 N.J. 72, 85 (1957)). In Chen v. Federated Dept. Stores Inc., 199 N.J. Super. 336, 337 (App.Div. 1985), petitioner was employed as a salesperson at respondent's store, Abraham Straus. On petitioner's lunch break she was shopping in respondent's store, tripped on a clothes hanger and was injured.

The judge of compensation denied her claim for facial and head burns, scarring and neuropsychiatric and dermatological disabilities, concluding that the event was not "reasonably incidental" to her employment. On appeal, we reversed, based upon Chen v. Federated Dept. Stores, 199 N.J. Super. 336, 489 A.2d 719 (App.Div. 1985), which we found dispositive. However, the Supreme Court reversed our determination and reinstated the judgment of the Division of Workers' Compensation in favor of the respondent.

In response to appellants' further contention, we acknowledge that the so-called mutual benefit doctrine has survived the statutory changes wrought by the 1979 amendments. See Chen v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 199 N.J. Super. 336 (App.Div. 198 5); Doe v. St. Michael's Med. Center, Newark, supra. However, we find that principle inapplicable to the situation presented by this case.