Robert E. Levy
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comWhen Are New Jersey Employers Liable for Workplace Accidents Under New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act?
Author: Robert E. Levy|January 24, 2014
When Are New Jersey Employers Liable for Workplace Accidents Under New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act?
Under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act, participating New Jersey employers are obligated to provide compensation to employees who are injured in accidents arising out of and in the course of employment, regardless of whether either party was negligent. Determining whether a given accident falls under the statute is often the subject of New Jersey litigation.
In Burdette v. Harrah’s Atlantic City, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court recently clarified the time-and-place nexus that must exist between the injured worker’s employment and the accident.
The Facts of the Case
Plaintiff Carla Burdette was injured in an automobile accident after completing her shift as a casino dealer at Harrah’s Atlantic City. At the point of impact, Burdette’s vehicle was located partially on MGM Mirage Boulevard, but was still partly over Harrah’s driveway’s apron. Harrah’s denied the claim, arguing that Burdette had exited the premises when the crash occurred. However, the trial court concluded that because one foot in length of Burdette’s car was still in the area of the parking lot controlled by Harrah’s, she was still in the course of her employment when the accident occurred.
The Court’s Decision
The Appellate Division ultimately upheld the trial court’s decision, rejecting Harrah’s argument that the trial court erroneously based its decision on “disposition of the vehicle rather than the place where the Petitioner-Respondent’s accidental injuries occurred.”
As noted by the court, the Workers’ Compensation Act specifically states that “[e]mployment shall be deemed to commence when an employee arrives at the employer’s place of employment to report for work and shall terminate when the employee leaves the employer’s place of employment, excluding areas not under the control of the employer.”
In reaching its decision, the court further highlighted that the so-called premises rule should be read expansively. “Because the Act is humanitarian social legislation, it is to be liberally construed in favor of coverage, for the protection of employees,” they said. “The inextricable connection between Harrah’s premises and the collision would render a parting of the accidental injuries from compensability an unjust result.”
The court further rejected Harrah’s “ultra-rigid approach that focuses only on the colliding vehicles’ point of impact and the front seat location of Burdette in her Explorer. Instead, applying common sense and the policies inherent in the Act, we subscribe to the judge of compensation’s viewpoint that the injuries suffered here were a result of Burdette’s firm attachment to her place of employment, albeit while on her way home.”
The Message for Employers
As this New Jersey workers’ compensation case highlights, employers may be held liable for accidents that occur on the outskirts of their properties. Moreover, given the legislative intent to quickly provide compensation to injury victims, courts will tend to rule in favor coverage.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck employment attorney with whom you work.
When Are New Jersey Employers Liable for Workplace Accidents Under New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act?
Author: Robert E. Levy
Under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act, participating New Jersey employers are obligated to provide compensation to employees who are injured in accidents arising out of and in the course of employment, regardless of whether either party was negligent. Determining whether a given accident falls under the statute is often the subject of New Jersey litigation.
In Burdette v. Harrah’s Atlantic City, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court recently clarified the time-and-place nexus that must exist between the injured worker’s employment and the accident.
The Facts of the Case
Plaintiff Carla Burdette was injured in an automobile accident after completing her shift as a casino dealer at Harrah’s Atlantic City. At the point of impact, Burdette’s vehicle was located partially on MGM Mirage Boulevard, but was still partly over Harrah’s driveway’s apron. Harrah’s denied the claim, arguing that Burdette had exited the premises when the crash occurred. However, the trial court concluded that because one foot in length of Burdette’s car was still in the area of the parking lot controlled by Harrah’s, she was still in the course of her employment when the accident occurred.
The Court’s Decision
The Appellate Division ultimately upheld the trial court’s decision, rejecting Harrah’s argument that the trial court erroneously based its decision on “disposition of the vehicle rather than the place where the Petitioner-Respondent’s accidental injuries occurred.”
As noted by the court, the Workers’ Compensation Act specifically states that “[e]mployment shall be deemed to commence when an employee arrives at the employer’s place of employment to report for work and shall terminate when the employee leaves the employer’s place of employment, excluding areas not under the control of the employer.”
In reaching its decision, the court further highlighted that the so-called premises rule should be read expansively. “Because the Act is humanitarian social legislation, it is to be liberally construed in favor of coverage, for the protection of employees,” they said. “The inextricable connection between Harrah’s premises and the collision would render a parting of the accidental injuries from compensability an unjust result.”
The court further rejected Harrah’s “ultra-rigid approach that focuses only on the colliding vehicles’ point of impact and the front seat location of Burdette in her Explorer. Instead, applying common sense and the policies inherent in the Act, we subscribe to the judge of compensation’s viewpoint that the injuries suffered here were a result of Burdette’s firm attachment to her place of employment, albeit while on her way home.”
The Message for Employers
As this New Jersey workers’ compensation case highlights, employers may be held liable for accidents that occur on the outskirts of their properties. Moreover, given the legislative intent to quickly provide compensation to injury victims, courts will tend to rule in favor coverage.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck employment attorney with whom you work.
