New Jersey Supreme Court finds that the petitioner was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits in applying the premises rule.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision which had found the petitioner’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Appellate Division’s decision was a reversal of the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision that found the injuries were compensable. 

On February 3, 2014, the petitioner, a librarian employed by the Township of Sparta, was walking to her husband’s car in the parking lot when they were struck by a snowplow owned by the Township and operated by a Township employee, Paul Austin. The parking lot was owned and maintained by the Township, open to employees and the general public, and was adjacent to the library. The Township did not: direct employees to park in assigned spaces or lots, require permits, or direct travel between the lots and the library.

The petitioner suffered injuries to her leg and, as such, filed a complaint against the Township, the library, Mr. Austin and the Sparta Department of Public Works (collectively, defendants) in the Law Division. The defendants moved to dismiss on the basis of the exclusive remedy provision of the Act, but were denied. The petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment, and the defendants filed a cross motion for a stay and transfer to the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The petitioner then filed a workers’ compensation claim against the Township. 

Ultimately, the Workers’ Compensation Judge found the petitioner’s injuries arose out of and in the course of employment, noting the Township owned, maintained and controlled the parking lot adjacent to the library. The petitioner appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed, finding the Township did not have control over the petitioner’s use of the parking lot. Specifically, the Appellate Division noted that employees were not directed on where or how to park and that finding compensability would bring “overbroad expansion” of liability for public employers.

The defendants petitioned for certification, which was granted. They argued the premises rule did not look at the degree of control exercised, only the site and right to control. In addition, they indicated the Appellate Division’s decision would open public employers up to more tort liability exposure and limit workers’ compensation benefits for employees. In opposition, the petitioner argued that degree of control was reviewed and the parking lot was not a part of the Township’s premises. 

The Supreme Court found that the petitioner was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits in applying the premises rule. Specifically, the parking lot was adjacent to the library, the petitioner stepped off the library curb into the parking lot, where she was injured, and the Township maintained control through ownership and maintenance. There was no dispute that the parking lot was available for use by employees and, as such, the petitioner’s injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.

^{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}