WHEN IS AN EMPLOYEE COMING OR GOING?
New Jersey employers are required to maintain workers
compensation insurance to provide medical treatment, income
and other benefits to their employees injured on the job. Just
about everyone agrees with the goals of the workers
compensation program: to provide medical treatment and other
benefits quickly for injured employees, and to provide employers
with protection from tort liability resulting from an injury.
Nonetheless, issues of contention remain, including whether a
particular injury is covered and when, despite workers
compensation insurance, an employer may be liable for an
employee’s injury.
To be covered by workers compensation, an employee
must be injured on the employer’s premises OR suffer an off premises
injury related to his employment. The interpretation
and application of these requirements to a virtually infinite
variety of factual situations has created a substantial body of
case law.
INJURY ON EMPLOYER’S PREMISES. The easiest
type of injury to classify is one that occurs during working hours,
on the employer’s premises, while the employee is engaged in
his work. That employee is covered by workers compensation.
In the absence of dangerous conditions created deliberately or
recklessly by the employer, the employee will be limited to
workers compensation benefits and can’t sue the employer for
more. However, this “premises rule” is not necessarily as
straightforward as it may appear. More on this below.
INJURY OFF PREMISES WHILE AN EMPLOYEE IS
DOING HIS JOB OR ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY REQUIRED
BY THE EMPLOYER. This covers the situation where an
employee has a car accident while driving between employer
locations, or driving, walking, cabbing, etc. off premises where
the job requires that. Cases where an employee is sent on an
errand or other mission, even though not a regular part of his
job, are also included. The injury must be “in the course of
employment or arising out of it,” and for public policy reasons,
courts interpret these phrases broadly. An employee who
makes a side trip for a personal errand is subject to non-coverage.
Disqualifying side trips have included visits to
racetracks, bars and churches, as well as personal shopping
trips.
INJURY WHILE COMING TO WORK OR GOING HOME
AFTER WORK. Generally speaking, if an employee suffers an
injury or accident while traveling to or from the workplace, he is
not entitled to workers compensation benefits. Before he enters
and once he leaves the employer’s premises, he is on his own.
This may seem like a simple proposition, but again the virtually
infinite variety of factual situations has created many exceptions
to the basic rule.
INJURY WHILE ACCESSING EMPLOYER’S
PREMISES VIA OTHER NONPUBLIC PREMISES. Courts
have expanded the “premises rule” beyond the employer’s
premises under certain circumstances. Generally, if the
employer controls neighboring property owned by a third party,
an employee injured on his way to or from the employer’s
premises will be covered. In one case, coverage was found
where the only access to the employer’s premises was via
adjacent property owned by a third party. The theory was that
the employer, by not providing alternate access, was requiring
the employee to use the allegedly dangerous access road
through adjacent land, thus encountering a hazard he would not
have encountered but for his employment. Similarly, employees
injured in common areas of business premises, such as a
shopping center parking lot, are also covered.
On the other hand, coverage was denied when an
employee who chose to cut through a nearby office complex
was injured. The court found that the employer had no control
over the complex and no role in the decision to cut through it.
INJURY WHILE PARTIALLY ON THE EMPLOYER’S
PREMISES.
The availability of coverage for injuries incurred while an
employee is only partially on the employer’s premises has also
been litigated. In a recent case, a casino employee was injured
while driving out of her employer’s parking lot onto a public
road. When her car was hit by a car driving on the road, one
wheel was still in the parking lot. Coverage was granted. This
case illustrates the role of public policy concerns in judicial
decisions because public policy favors compensating injured
employees, courts will find coverage if possible.
This is not the end of circumstances where coverage has
been found for an employee injured while coming or going.
More next week.
DISCLAIMER
This article is for general information only and is not intended to provide legal advice or to address specific legal problems. This article does not create an attorney client relationship. For legal advice concerning workers compensation and all other legal matters, consult an attorney.
This entry was posted in MMJ Commentary. Bookmark the
permalink. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback:
Trackback URL.
WORKERS COMPENSATION
WHEN IS AN EMPLOYEE COMING OR GOING?
New Jersey employers are required to maintain workers
compensation insurance to provide medical treatment, income
and other benefits to their employees injured on the job. Just
about everyone agrees with the goals of the workers
compensation program: to provide medical treatment and other
benefits quickly for injured employees, and to provide employers
with protection from tort liability resulting from an injury.
Nonetheless, issues of contention remain, including whether a
particular injury is covered and when, despite workers
compensation insurance, an employer may be liable for an
employee’s injury.
To be covered by workers compensation, an employee
must be injured on the employer’s premises OR suffer an off premises
injury related to his employment. The interpretation
and application of these requirements to a virtually infinite
variety of factual situations has created a substantial body of
case law.
INJURY ON EMPLOYER’S PREMISES. The easiest
type of injury to classify is one that occurs during working hours,
on the employer’s premises, while the employee is engaged in
his work. That employee is covered by workers compensation.
In the absence of dangerous conditions created deliberately or
recklessly by the employer, the employee will be limited to
workers compensation benefits and can’t sue the employer for
more. However, this “premises rule” is not necessarily as
straightforward as it may appear. More on this below.
INJURY OFF PREMISES WHILE AN EMPLOYEE IS
DOING HIS JOB OR ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY REQUIRED
BY THE EMPLOYER. This covers the situation where an
employee has a car accident while driving between employer
locations, or driving, walking, cabbing, etc. off premises where
the job requires that. Cases where an employee is sent on an
errand or other mission, even though not a regular part of his
job, are also included. The injury must be “in the course of
employment or arising out of it,” and for public policy reasons,
courts interpret these phrases broadly. An employee who
makes a side trip for a personal errand is subject to non-coverage.
Disqualifying side trips have included visits to
racetracks, bars and churches, as well as personal shopping
trips.
INJURY WHILE COMING TO WORK OR GOING HOME
AFTER WORK. Generally speaking, if an employee suffers an
injury or accident while traveling to or from the workplace, he is
not entitled to workers compensation benefits. Before he enters
and once he leaves the employer’s premises, he is on his own.
This may seem like a simple proposition, but again the virtually
infinite variety of factual situations has created many exceptions
to the basic rule.
INJURY WHILE ACCESSING EMPLOYER’S
PREMISES VIA OTHER NONPUBLIC PREMISES. Courts
have expanded the “premises rule” beyond the employer’s
premises under certain circumstances. Generally, if the
employer controls neighboring property owned by a third party,
an employee injured on his way to or from the employer’s
premises will be covered. In one case, coverage was found
where the only access to the employer’s premises was via
adjacent property owned by a third party. The theory was that
the employer, by not providing alternate access, was requiring
the employee to use the allegedly dangerous access road
through adjacent land, thus encountering a hazard he would not
have encountered but for his employment. Similarly, employees
injured in common areas of business premises, such as a
shopping center parking lot, are also covered.
On the other hand, coverage was denied when an
employee who chose to cut through a nearby office complex
was injured. The court found that the employer had no control
over the complex and no role in the decision to cut through it.
INJURY WHILE PARTIALLY ON THE EMPLOYER’S
PREMISES.
The availability of coverage for injuries incurred while an
employee is only partially on the employer’s premises has also
been litigated. In a recent case, a casino employee was injured
while driving out of her employer’s parking lot onto a public
road. When her car was hit by a car driving on the road, one
wheel was still in the parking lot. Coverage was granted. This
case illustrates the role of public policy concerns in judicial
decisions because public policy favors compensating injured
employees, courts will find coverage if possible.
This is not the end of circumstances where coverage has
been found for an employee injured while coming or going.
More next week.
DISCLAIMER
This article is for general information only and is not intended to provide legal advice or to address specific legal problems. This article does not create an attorney client relationship. For legal advice concerning workers compensation and all other legal matters, consult an attorney.