The New Jersey Supreme Court recently awarded workers compensation benefits to an employee injured in an accident arising in the course of employment, overturning an earlier ruling by an Appellate Court. See Lapsley v. Township of Sparta, 2022 N.J. LEXIS 61 (Jan. 18, 2022). In this case, Plaintiff alleged that she was struck by a snowplow owned by the Township while walking in the parking lot also owned and maintained by the Township, Plaintiff’s employer.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act which was denied by the Law Division. Plaintiff then filed a summary judgment motion arguing that her injuries were not compensable under the Act. Defendants then filed a cross-motion for a stay and transfer of the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Division for a finding as to the compensability under the Act. Plaintiff then filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits against the Township in the Workers’ Compensation Division. The Division found that the injuries “arose out of and in the course” of Plaintiff’s employment and were compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. § 34:15-36 and awarded benefits to Plaintiff. Id. at 9.
Plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Division found that Plaintiff’s injuries did not arise “out of and in the course of” employment because the Township exercised no control over Plaintiff’s use of the parking lot. Id. at 6. The Appellate Division relied in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in Novis v. Rosenbluth Travel, 138 N.J. 92 (1994) in considering the degree of control the employer exercised over the employee’s use of the lot. Id. at 9. The Appellate Court found that the Township did not exercise control over the parking lot because Township employees were never instructed on where to park or where to enter/exit the municipal complex. The Appellate Court concluded that a finding of compensability “would be an unwarranted and overbroad expansion” of liability for public employees. Id. at 10.
At the Supreme Court, Defendants challenged the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff and argued that the premises rule looks to the site of the accident and employer’s right to control the parking lot, not the degree of control it actually exercises for purposes of determining compensability. As such, Defendants argued that the Appellate Division’s decision would improperly expand public employers’ exposure to tort liability and employees’ eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits. Id. at 11. Of course, Plaintiff argued that the Township exercised no control of the parking lot and no control over her route to or from the municipal complex. Id.
In determining whether an accident arises “out of and in the course of employment,” the Supreme Court relied on Kriastiansen v. Morgan, 153 N.J. 298, 316 (citing N.J.S.A. 34:15-36) which states, that an injury that occurs “going to or coming from work arises out of and in the course of employment if injury takes place on the employer’s premises.” Id. at 4. Therefore, the fact that an employee finished work and is no longer on the clock does not preclude compensability.
The Supreme Court found that Plaintiff is, entitled to compensation under the Act. The site of the accident was the parking lot adjacent to the library where Plaintiff was employed as Plaintiff stepped off the curb directly into the parking lot. The Township controlled the parking lot through ownership and maintenance and the parties do not dispute the Township’s ownership and maintenance. Furthermore, the Township’s plowing of the lot further demonstrates the Township’s exercise of control over the lot. Id. at 5. The court affirmed the Division of Workers Compensation judgment awarding Plaintiff benefits.
Clearly, Plaintiff’s goal was to avoid the more limited benefits under the workers’ compensation statute and to pursue a third-party claim against the co-employee operating the snowplow. However, the employer’s ownership and maintenance of the premises resulted in the unavoidable conclusion that this was indeed a work-related event.