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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more