Skip to main content

Employee Walks Across Street on Way Into Work & Gets Injured: Entitled to Worker's Compensation?


Hersh v. County of Morris - Supreme Court of New Jersey

Facts:  Cheryl Hersh was employed by the County of Morris.  The County gave Hersh permission to park in a private parking garage where the County rented about 65 parking spots, which was approximately two blocks from Hersh's office.  On January 29, 2010, Hersh parked her car in the garage, exited the garage to go to her office, and was struck by a motor vehicle that ran a red light while Hersh was crossing a public street.

Hersh filed for workers' compensation benefits and the judge of compensation concluded that since the accident occurred during the course of Hersh's employment (since the accident happened after Hersh arrived at her "employer controlled lot"), she was entitled to workers' compensation.  The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling and held that although the garage and sidewalk were not part of the workplace, the County exercised control over the areas and thus the accident occurred during the course of Hersh's employment.  

Holding:  The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling and held Hersh was not entitled to compensation under the Worker's Compensation Act.  In order to determine whether an employer is liable for injuries that happen to its workers, the "premises rule" comes into play.  The "premises rule" holds that an injury arises out of and in the course of employment if the injury takes place on the employer's premises.  The two pivotal points to consider in regard to the "premises rule" are 1) the site of the accident, and 2) the degree of control the employer had over the property.

In this case, the accident occurred a few blocks away from the County's office building where Hersh worked.  The County did not own, maintain, or control the garage.  In fact, it only rented a small portion of the available spots in the garage.  The Supreme Court further established that the County did not control the public street where the accident occurred and did not dictate the which path Hersh took from the garage to her workplace.  In this instance, Hersh's route was used by the general public.  The Supreme Court noted several prior cases and pointed to the fact that public places that are not under the control of the employer are not considered part of the employer's premises for purposes of worker's compensation benefits.

The Takeaway:  Employers can breathe a sigh of relief in some sense here.  The Supreme Court clarified that employers are not necessarily liable for all injuries that occur to their employees while the employees are walking into work.  However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the amount of control the employer has over the area where the accident occurs is one of the big points on which this issue turns.  When an accident to an employee occurs in a situation similar to this case, it is important for employers to consider the two factors of the "premises rule" when establishing whether liability could exist.

Judgment:  The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling and held that since Hersh was injured on a public street, not controlled by the County, Hersh was not entitled to worker's compensation under the Worker's Compensation Act.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Fernandez-Vina

Date:  April 1, 2014

Opinion:  http://laconiclawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/A5912HershvCountyofMorris.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more