Parking Lot Cases Teach Us to Go Back to Basics

Sunday, March 28, 2004 | 0

"Parking lot" cases, such as the recent decision by the Fourth Appellate District of California in Sharp Coronado Hospital vs. WCAB (D042518, 03/22/04)(not certified for publication), are classic tests of the basic legal doctrine in workers' compensation, that the injury "arise out of and in the course of employment", or "AOE/COE". These cases teach us that there are two distinct elements the injured worker must prove by a preponderance of the evidence to meet this legal standard: that the injury arise out of employment, and that the injury occur during the course of employment. In California, this rule is codified in Labor Code section 3600.

Now, it may seem that these are rather rudimentary - which they are - but the precise dividing line as to the application of the rule gets muddy when applied to parking lot cases, and different cases may generate different legal results even though factually they appear similar. While parking lot cases are generally analyzed under different legal doctrines, such as the "going and coming" rule, or "special risk" doctrine, elementally they come down to the basics: whether the employer exercises, or can exercise, control over the employee.

One of the preeminent cases providing a full discussion on AOE/COE and parking lot cases is Rogers vs. WCAB, 172 Cal.App.3d 1195 (1985). In Rogers, the injured worker (Rogers), per her customary practice, during a break went to a bank a few blocks away from her place of employment to cash her pay check. Upon return, she parked in a lot owned and maintained by her employer for the employees.

When Rogers parked into a space, a 'biker' simultaneously pulled in behind her, followed her to where she parked her car, and parked his motorcycle in a nearby stall. She sat in the car for a minute or two and sorted her money before putting it in her purse. Then she got out of the car and walked hurriedly toward the lot exit on the way to her work station. However, the biker grabbed her from behind, struck her, beat her down, took her purse and fled on his motorcycle.

Other employees were on the premises but did not heed her cries. Rogers testified that normally there are attendants guarding the lot but they were not present.

Rogers won at trial, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed on a split decision. The appellate court upheld the Board's reversal.

That Rogers' injury arose out of her employment is not disputed the Court said. The fact that the injury occurred on the employer's premises fulfills that requirement. The critical component, said the Court, was whether the injuries occurred during the course of employment. The burden of proving this element was not met by Rogers.

In analyzing the facts that were presented on appeal, the Court noted that in assault cases, the COE component is dependent on "whether the assault is made by reason of circumstances connected with the employment or without any relation thereto... In other words, when a third party intentionally injures the employee on personal motivation, there has to be some work connection to establish compensability."

The court concluded in Rogers that the assault was personally motivated as the unrebutted evidence suggested that the biker's intent to assault Rogers was formed off premises, away from work, and independent of her employment.

"The assailant having formed his intent previously, the assault could have occurred anywhere. There was no showing that her assailant intended to assault or rob only a Hughes employee, or that the assailant's motive was other than strictly personal. Thus, the assault was personally motivated, and the employer's premises played no part in the assailant's intent to rob her; rather, it was merely 'a stage for the event.' It was not shown that the risk of harm was limited to the place of employment or that the employment contributed in any way to her selection as the victim of the assault. Nor was it shown that the assault occurred because she was performing the duties of her employment, but rather merely because the assailant followed her there from her personal errand at the bank." (Citations omitted.)

Thus, in the Rogers parking lot case, the determinant factor was based on whether there was a connection between how the injury occurred and the parking lot - there was nothing special about the parking lot that contributed to Rogers' injury. There was nothing about the employment relationship in that instance that indicated that the employer had any control over either the situation or the employee at the time of injury.

In Sharp Coronado Hospital vs. WCAB, Laura Brown was employed by Sharp as a supervisor in the cardiopulmonary department. On December 14, 2001, Brown drove to work and parked her car on a side street. She parked there because the hospital staff was encouraged to park on side streets rather than on the main entrance street. As Brown crossed the street in front of the hospital, she was hit by a truck and injured. The WCJ granted benefits to Brown based on the "special risk" exception to the "going and coming" rule. On appeal, the Board's decision was reversed because there was no evidence that Brown was exposed to a risk that was any greater or different than the general public in utilizing that parking lot.

In Sharp, the court basically reasoned that the employer did not exercise control over Brown to any degree greater than the general public. There was nothing in the parking situation that indicated that the employer was treating employees differently than the general public.

Though the Sharp case and the Rogers case turn on different legal theories, those theories stem from one of the basic tenets of workers' compensation law - control. The general rule is, of course, the more control over the employee and the employee's situation that is found at the time of injury, the more culpable the employer is, and the more likely compensability will be found. The "going and coming" rule is founded on the degree of control the employer has or is asserting, perhaps through a special benefit. In analyzing such cases, going back to basics is often the best approach.

-------------------

The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of workcompcentral.com, its editors or management.