Parking Lot Cases Slide Presentation

IWCC – Parking Lot Cases
Seminar for Sentry Insurance
January 30, 2015
GAROFALO, SCHREIBER & STORM, CHARTERED
By: Joseph Garofalo
P: 312-670-2000
E: jgarofalo@gsslawoffice.com
www.gsslawoffice.com

Illinois is not a positional risk,
i.e. "but for" State
To be compensable an accident must
•"arise out of" and occur
•"in the course of” the employment
Parking Lot Cases - GSS 2

Brady v Industrial Commission,
143 Ill.2d 542 (1991)
• Claimant was an estimating engineer
• Works at a drafting table attached to a wall in his office
• Truck accident on Route 53; Truck crashes into building and drafting table
punctures claimant’s abdomen
• Claimant on permanent life support
• Snowing
• Employer’s building was a garage for construction equipment
• Exterior walls made of corrugated metal; interior walls made of plywood
affixed to wooden studs
• Route 53 used frequently by trucks hauling stone from nearby quarries
• Employer prevails at arbitration, I.C., Cir. Ct., App. Ct. – Finding of not AOO
affirmed as not contrary to manifest weight of evidence

Brady v Industrial Commission,
143 Ill.2d 542 (1991) - contd.
NOT COMPENSABLE
• I.C. affirmed that hazard was not incidental to claimant’s employment, and
work environment did not increase the risk of this injury
• Court Acknowledges that in other cases compensability findings of I.C. was
affirmed regarding:
– Tornados
– Explosion of commercial airliner
– Lightning strike of telephone line
– Assault
• Court rejects adoption of the positional at risk doctrine whereby:
– “an injury may be said to arise out of the employment if the injury would not have
occurred but for the fact that the conditions or obligations of the employment placed
claimant in the position where he was injured by a neutral force, meaning by ‘neutral’
neither personal to the claimant nor distinctly associated with the employment”

GENERAL LEGAL ISSUES
OCCURING IN WC
ARISING OUT OF
• Accident must have its
origin in some risk
connected with or
incidental to the
employment
• The risk the employee
faces must be greater
than the degree of risk
faced by the general
public
IN THE COURSE OF
• Refers to time, place and
circumstances
• Must be engaged in
employment activity or
something incidental to
the employment

GENERAL LEGAL ISSUES, contd.
DEVIATION
• When an employee exposes himself/herself to an unnecessary personal
danger solely for his/her own benefit
CAUSATION
• Claimant has a duty to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence
that the medical condition is causally related to the work injury
– i.e., that the work injury could or might have been "a" causative factor
in causing the condition, even if it only may have aggravated or
exacerbated an underlying condition

INJURIES OCCURRING ON OR IN THE
VICINITY OF PARKING LOTS
THE LAW
• The Workers' Compensation Act does not mention parking lots
– Law governing compensability of parking lot injuries is based on case
decisions
THE "GENERAL PREMISES" RULE
• Generally, injuries occuring on an employer’s premises are found to be
compensable when AOO & ICO tests are satisfied
THE “GOING AND COMING” RULE
• Accidents suffered by employees while going to and from work are not
compensable

EXCEPTIONS TO
"GENERAL PREMISES" RULE
1. When an employee's employment
requires him/her to be where the
accident occurred
Examples
a) When an employee is paid for their TIME while
traveling to and from work
– reimbursement of travel expenses is one factor to
be evaluated but is not determinative of
compensability
b) When an employee is on a "special mission”
c) When the employee is on 24 hour call
d) When the employment requires travel i.e., the
employee is a "traveling employee"
e) When the employee is given a company vehicle
When the preceding circumstances exist, accidents
suffered while an employee is going to and from work
are compensable
2. Accidents occurring in parking lots,
which are provided by and are under
the control of the employer
• Can create complicated situations when
parking lots are used by employees and the
general public

Homereding v Industrial Commission, 327
Ill. App3d 1050 (2002)
• Claimant was a nail technician in a salon located in a strip mall
• Parking lot in front of and in rear of the salon
• Parking lot was owned by the mall; the employer paid a share of the
common costs to maintain the lots
• Employer instructed employee to park in the rear lot
• Claimant fell on ice going to her car to obtain work supplies during the
work day
COMPENSABLE

Patton v Dixon Strings, 21 ILQCLB 25
(IllW.C. Comm. 2012)
• Employee reaching into back seatof her vehicle for work supplies before
checking into work and slipped and twisted her knee
• The parking lot was used by employees & the general public
• Employer did not instruct employees where to park in the lot
NOT COMPENSABLE

Metsa v CDW LLC, 20 ILWCLB 90
(Ill.W.C. Com m. 2012)
• Parking lot was used by employees & the general public
• The lot had a public portion and an employee area
• Employer did not instruct employees where to park in the lot
• The claimant parked in the public portion of the lot
• Claimant slipped and fell on black ice covering handicapped parking spots
which everyone who parked in the lot crossed in order to gain access to
the building regardless of where in the lot they parked
NOT COMPENSABLE

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Industrial
Commission, 326 Ill. App.3d 438 (2001)
• Employee was walking in parking lot to her car which was being driven by
her friend who was picking her up after work
• Employer had requested employees to park in a designated area but this
was not "required"
• The general public parked anywhere in the lot, including the area where
the employer had requested employees to park
NOT COMPENSABLE

Morris v State of Illinois Department of
Healthcare and Family Services,
22 ILWCLB 188 (Ill. W.C. Comm. 2014)
• Employee parked on a public boulevard in front of his work place
• Employer did not require that he park in any specific place
• Claimant slipped and fell on the public boulevard on his way to his car
immediately after work
• The route the claimant walked to his car was not defective and there was
no hazard
• The employer did not own own or maintain the parking spot where the
claimant had parked
NOT COMPENSABLE

Joiner v Industrial Commission,
337 Ill. App.3d 627 (3rd Dist. 2003)
• Claimant was a deputy clerk at the Will County Courthouse
• After working claimant walked in the lot to her co-worker's vehicle in the parking lot when
she tripped on loose gravel and fell into a pothole
• The employer reimbursed the employees for their parking expenses
• The parking lot was privately owned
• The employer did not own, control or maintain the lot
• The employee did not need to walk on the lot where she fell in furtherance of her work
duties
• The employer had no agreement with the owner of the lot re: fees to be paid by its
employees to park there
NOT COMPENSABLE
• Parking expense reimbursement cannot be equated with "providing” the
parking facility

CONCLUSION RE: COMPENSABILITY OF
PARKING LOT ACCIDENTS
• If the employer owned, maintained and provided the parking
lot and when a hazardous condition is present, accidents on
parking lots are compensable.
• The rationale for this conclusion is that the parking lot is
deemed to be a part of the employer's premises.

COMMON PARKING LOT
HAZARDS/DEFECTS
• Presence of snow or ice
• Presence of water
• Presence of foreign
substance
• Cracks, potholes or uneven
surfaces
• Slip and fall
• Motor vehicle accidents
• Injuries when employees
assist customers or
employees
COMMON TYPES OF
PARKING LOT ACCIDENTS

EXCLUSIVITY PROVISION
Section 5(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act provides that
benefits paid under the Act are an employee's exclusive
remedy under the Act
• If a parking lot accident is compensable, the employee cannot sue the
employer for civil damages
• Several cases decided in a civil context re arising out of and in the course
of for parking lot accidents and when an accident is found to be
compensable the civil case is dismissed

DEVIATION CASES
Dodson v Industrial Commission,
117 Ill.2d 38 (1997)
• Claimant was a waitress walking
to her car in a parking lot after
work
• It was raining
• Claimant abandoned the sidewalk
and walked down a slope where
she slipped and fell
NOT COMPENSABLE
• The claimant exposed herself to
an unnecessary personal risk for
her own benefit
Hatfil v Industrial Commission,
202 Ill. App.3d 547 (4th Dist. 1990)
• Claimant walked to his car in the
company parking lot after work
and jumped across accumulated
water at the base of a five foot
incline instead of using one of
two walkways
NOT COMPENSABLE
• Claimant took a personal risk by
leaving the workplace in an
unsafe manner

DEVIATION CASES, contd.
Fisher Body Division, General
Motors Corp. v Industrial
Commission, 40 Ill.2d 514 (1968)
• Claimant worked on his car in the
company parking lot after work
and was injured when his battery
exploded
NOT COMPENSABLE
• Claimant was injured as result of
a personal risk
Hanson v Illinois Workers’
Compensation Commission et al.,
2013 Il App (3d) 120989WC-U
• Claimant started her shift and then walked
to her car in the company parking lot to
retrieve work materials
• Instead of walking on the sidewalk to the
lot, she crossed a grass area, jumped
across a retaining wall, and fell injuring
herself
NOT COMPENSABLE
• This was a personal risk, which
exposed claimant to a risk entirely
separate from her employment
responsibilities

Caterpillar Tractor Co. v Industrial
Commission, 129 Ill.2d 52 (1989)
• Claimant stepped off a curb onto a blacktop driveway in route to his car parked in the
company parking lot
• There was a slight cement slope for drainage between the curb and the blacktop driveway
• As the claimant stepped off the curb his right foot half landed on cement and half on the
blacktop driveway and he twisted his ankle
• The cement incline was dry and there were no holes, obstructions or rocks
• The claimant did not slip, trip or fall
NOT COMPENSABLE
• There was no defect or hazard
• Claimant did not trip, slip or fall
• Nothing had increased claimant's risk of harm
• All members of the general public confront risk of traversing curbs
Additional Cases

Vill v Industrial Commission,
351 Ill. App.3d 798 (2004)
• Claimant was a security guard and parked in a lot designated for use by
security guards
• Claimant injured her knee while exiting her vehicle; as she squeezed out of
the vehicle her foot caught in a crack in the parking lot surface
NOT COMPENSABLE
• The risk claimant faced is no different than risks faced by the general
public
Additional Cases

Lichtfield Healthcare Center
v Industrial Commission,
349 Ill. App3d 486 (5th Dist. 204)
• Claimant was a nursing assistant and parked in the company parking lot and clocked into
work
• Claimant returned to her car to obtain a belt required to perform her job
• While walking back to the building claimant tripped on uneven piece of concrete in the
parking lot (photo of concrete was in evidence)
• Claimant's employer was the sole occupant of the building
• Employer was in charge of maintaining building and the surrounding areas
• Claimant was not required to park anywhere specifically
COMPENSABLE
• Accident was clearly in the course of
• Presence of defect/hazard was shown
• Claimant was exposed to this defect more frequently than the general public,
constituting an increased risk
Additional Cases

Morse-Harvey v Industrial Commission,
345 Ill. App.3d 1034 (2004)
• Claimant was a waitress and parked in the lot in the rear of the restaurant where
she worked at the employer's direction
• There was a parking lot in front of and at the rear of the restaurant and both were
owned and maintained by the employer
• Claimant slipped and fell on ice and snow
COMPENSABLE
• Ice and snow were a hazard
• Employer "provided" the lot
• Employer restricted where the employee could park (he wanted the front
lot saved for customers)
• The ice and snow in the rear lot was a greater risk to employees than the
general public
Additional Cases

Suter v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation
Com’n, 376 Ill.Dec. 261, (Ill App 4th 2013,
1300049 WC)
• Claimant was a loaned employee
• At premises of borrowing employer, the owner of the premises had the
duty to maintain the parking lot
• The building manager assigned claimant her parking space where other
employees of the borrowing employer were asked to park
• Claimant slipped on ice after closing the door to her car after arriving at
work and was injured
COMPENSABLE
Additional Cases

PARKING LOTS
& ADJACENT ROADS
25Parking Lot Cases - GSS

A Hypothetical Case
• Claimant arrived at company parking lot 15
minutes before his shift starts
• The lot where claimant parks is one of three lots
designated for employees
• The general public also parks in these lots when
visiting the employer's facility
• Each lot is located across the street from each of
the building's three entrances
• The employer owns the building, all paring lots
& surrounding property, including the roads that
separate the building from the parking lots
• Each parking lot holds 500 vehicles
• There are two cross walks going from each
parking lot across the road from the buildings
entrances
• The cross walks are not controlled with traffic
signals, speed bumps or stop signs nor crossing
guards
• At the change of shifts there is increased traffic
coming into and leaving the parking lots
• Claimant was instructed which lot to use
• The street claimant was crossing is owned &
maintained by the employer but is also used by
the general public, particularly by traffic going
to and from another employer at the end of the
road
• While the claimant was crossing at one of the
crosswalks he was struck by a vehicle being
driven ay a co-worker who had punched out 15
minutes earlier after completing his shift
• Claimant suffered serious injuries in the
accident
• The co-worker who struck the claimant has an
auto insurance policy with $20,000 limits on his
liability coverage
• The claimant has UM coverage for up to $1
million on his auto insurance policy

The Issues
1. Is the accident compensable?
2. If compensable, who can claimant
sue?
3. If not compensable, who can
claimant sue?
4. If claimant sues the co-employee,
does the employer have a lien on
his recovery?
5. Could the employer become a
third party defendant in
claimant's civil case against the
co-employee?
6. Could the employer be sued
directly?

THE LAW
Oscar Meyer Food Corp v
Industrial Commission, 146 Ill.
App.3d 315 (1986)
• Quitting time with many employees leaving company
facility and exiting company parking lot at the same
time
• The company parking lot is across the street from the
plant
• The same company maintained the parking lot and
the road
• The claimant was struck by a vehicle, while walking to
the parking lot after her shift ended
• One of the claimant's co-employees who had just
exited the parking lot after leaving work at the end of
the shift was driving the vehicle that struck the
petitioner
• Citing Osborne v Industrial Commission, 50 Ill.2d 150
(1972) which circumstances were identical to those in
this case
COMPENSABLE
Williams v Country Mutual
Insurance, 28 Ill. App.3d 274 (1st
Dist. 1975)
• Two co-employees on their way to their work
stations (claimant had already punched in) were
in a vehicular collision on a street maintained by
the employer
• The road where the collision occurred was
under the care, maintenance and control of the
employer
• The road where the collision occurred was on
the employer's property and was not used by
the general public
• Vehicle stickers had been issued by the
employer to their employees
• The employer's security investigated the
accident
COMPENSABLE

THE LAW
Hess v Industrial Commission,
79 Ill.2d 240 (1980)
• Claimant parked in the company parking
lot and then crossed a public road using a
cross walk controlled with a traffic light to
get to the employer's premises
• Claimant was struck by a vehicle while
crossing the public road
• The street where the accident occurred
was not under the employer's control
• The claimant was not acting at the
direction of the employer when she
crossed the street
NOT COMPENSABLE
Sangster v Keller, a/k/a Becky
Wagoner, 226 Ill. App.3d 535 (1992)
• Plaintiff was injured in a vehicular
accident between two co-
employees at the end of their
shift while exiting the employer's
driveway
COMPENSABLE

Parking Lot Cases Slide Presentation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Parking Lot Cases Slide Presentation