Delaware High Court Says Sinkhole Injuries Were Not Compensable
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a courthouse employee who sustained injuries in a sinkhole accident near—but not on the courthouse property [Browning v. State, 2022 Del. LEXIS 8 (Jan. 10, 2022)]. Finding that the employee was still engaged in travel to the job, the Court agreed that the employee’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.
Background
An employee of the state of Delaware, who worked as a bailiff, sustained injuries when she fell as a sinkhole opened beneath her. Her injury occurred about ten minutes before her shift began. She had just parked her car on a public street near the Kent County Courthouse where she worked. She left her car, walked behind it, and stepped onto the grass between the sidewalk and the street. As she did so, the sinkhole opened, causing her to fall.
The Industrial Accident Board denied her claim, finding that although the state owned the street where the employee had parked her car, it was not part of the state’s “premises.” It reasoned that since the employee had not crossed the threshold of the courthouse when she fell, she was injured while traveling to work. Her claim was accordingly barred by the going and coming rule. The Superior Court upheld the Board’s decision and the employee appealed.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Delaware Supreme Court stressed initially that the employee was required to prove that the injury she sustained was “by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment [19 Del. Code § 2304]. It acknowledged that the issue before the Board had been fact-specific, requiring an examination of the “totality of the circumstances” [Opinion, ¶ 7]. The Court pointed to—but did not directly adopt—New York’s “gray area” rule, under which the risks of normal street travel are said to merge with the risks attendant to the employment as the employee draws near the workplace.
It cited two somewhat similar New York cases in which claims had been denied in spite of the fact that the injuries had occurred near the workplace [Matter of Trotman v. New York State Courts, 117 A.D.3d 1164, 1165, 984 N.Y.S.2d 663 (3d Dept. 2014)—upholding the Board’s denial of relief where a court employee slipped and fell on ice on the public sidewalk near the place of employment—and Littles v. New York State Dept. of Corr., 61 A.D.3d 1266, 877 N.Y.S.2d 505 (3d Dept. 2009)—upholding the Board’s denial of relief where the accident occurred in close proximity to the employer’s premises but no evidence was provided to show that the street was closed to the public or otherwise controlled by the employer; see also Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, §§ 6.04, 13.02].
The Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board’s decision. The employee had not been instructed where to park. She parked on a street that was open to the public. The location of her fall was outside the courthouse property line. Accordingly, the Board’s decision denying the claim was correct, said the Court.