NJ Township Librarian’s Injuries in Township Parking Lot Did Not Occur on the Employer’s Premises
Reversing a decision of a state workers’ compensation judge, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, found that injuries sustained by a township librarian, when she and her husband were struck by a snowplow being operated by a township employee in a parking lot that was adjacent to the library and owned by the township, did not arise out of and in the course of her employment [Lapsley v. Township of Sparta & Sparta Pub. Library, 2021 N.J. Super. LEXIS 14 (Jan. 29, 2021)]. The court acknowledged that the lot was owned by the township, but held that the township did not exercise sufficient control over the lot so as to make it part of the “premises” of the librarian’s daily work. Accordingly, a parallel negligence action that the librarian had filed against the township was not barred by the exclusive remedy doctrine.
Background
The employee worked for the township library that was located within a municipal complex that also included three common-use parking lots, a baseball field, and the township’s Board of Education offices. The common-use parking lots are free for use both by township employees as well as the general public. None of the parking areas within the common-use lot contained designated spots for the employe or any other township employees. Thus, the township imposed no restrictions on the employee in terms of paths of ingress or egress to and from the public parking lot and the library.
On February 3, 2014, the library closed early due to inclement weather. The employee’s husband came to pick her up and parked in one of the common-use parking lots. After stepping off the library curb and walking about eighteen feet into the lot, the couple was hit by a snowplow driven by a township public works employee. The employee sustained injuries to her leg that required multiple surgeries and that also left her permanently disfigured.
The employee sued the township and the snowplow driver, alleging negligence. While various motions were pending, in order to toll the statute of limitations, the employee also filed a protective claim petition in the Division of Workers’ Compensation, and requested a stay pending resolution of the Law Division matter. Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation judge found the employee’s injuries were compensable under the New Jersey Act.
Relying on Brower v. ICT Group, 164 N.J. 367, 753 A.2d 1045 (2000), the compensation judge determined that the township’s ownership, maintenance, and right to control the parking lot were sufficient to find that the injury occurred on the employer’s premises. That petitioner had clocked out, and that her employer had not actually exercised any degree of control over the parking lot, did not preclude compensability under the Act, held the judge. The employee appealed.
Appellate Court Decision: The Premises Rule
The appellate court noted that with amendments to the Act in 1979, the going and coming rule had been replaced with the so-called “premises rule.” The court noted that the premises rule was based on the notion that an injury to an employee going to or coming from work arises out of and in the course of employment if the injury takes place on the employer’s premises. Like the going and coming rule, the premises rule distinguished between accidents that occur on the employer’s premises from those that do not. The “premises” can, however, entail more than the four walls of an office or plant [citing Kristiansen v. Morgan, 153 N.J. 298, 316-17 (1997). Consideration should be made as to (1) the situs of the accident; and (2) whether the employer had control of the situs of the injury.
Degree of Employer Control Over Parking Lot
The court stressed that a critical factor in the evolution of the off-premises parking lot cases was the degree of control the employer exercised over the employee’s use of the lot. Use of a shared parking lot that accommodates multiple tenants, without specific instruction from an employer, is not sufficient to satisfy the premises rule [Livingstone v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., 111 N.J. 89 (1988); Novis v. Rosenbluth, 138 N.J. 92, 649 A.2d 69 (1994)].
The court acknowledged that the instant case was distinguishable from the most of the foregoing authorities, because the Township owned the parking lot adjacent to the library. Nevertheless, the court added that there was no reasoned basis to depart from the general rule that the library’s “use” of the common-use parking lot for its employees’ benefit was not sufficient to satisfy the premises rule. The employee was off-the-clock at the time of the accident and had exited the library premises. Library employees were not given any instructions about where in the subject lot to park or indeed whether to park in that particular lot, on the street, or anywhere else in town where parking may be available. Nor were library staff instructed on the manner of ingress or egress. The lot was shared with other municipal employees and members of the public alike. The employer exercised no control over the lot. The court said that once the employee clocked out and exited the library premises, she embarked on her normal commute home. The compensation judge’s decision was, therefore, reversed.