La Croix v. Omaha Public Schools
| Citation | 254 Neb. 1014,582 N.W.2d 283 |
| Decision Date | 10 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S-97-1338,S-97-1338 |
| Parties | , 128 Ed. Law Rep. 346 Diane LA CROIX, Appellant, v. OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Workers' Compensation: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Absent a factual dispute, whether an injury arose out of and in the course of employment is clearly a question of law, in connection with which a reviewing court has an obligation to reach its own conclusions independent of those reached by the inferior courts.
2. Workers' Compensation. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-101 (Reissue 1993) compensates injury caused an employee by an accident 3. Workers' Compensation: Proof: Words and Phrases. The phrases "arising out of" and "in the course of" in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-101 (Reissue 1993) are conjunctive; in order to recover, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that both conditions exist.
arising out of and in the course of his or her employment.
4. Workers' Compensation: Words and Phrases. The phrase "arising out of," as used in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-101 (Reissue 1993), describes the accident and its origin, cause, and character, i.e., whether it resulted from the risks arising within the scope of the employee's job; the phrase "in the course of," as used in § 48-101, refers to the time, place, and circumstances surrounding the accident.
5. Workers' Compensation. An injury sustained by an employee while going to and from work, at a fixed place of employment, does not arise out of and in the course of employment.
6. Workers' Compensation. A distinct causal connection must exist between an employer-created condition and the occurrence of an injury.
Thomas F. Dowd and Timothy S. Dowd, of Dowd & Dowd, Omaha, for appellant.
Joseph W. Grant and Lisa M. Meyer, of Gaines, Mullen, Pansing & Hogan, Omaha, for appellee.
The appellant, Diane La Croix, brought the instant workers' compensation action seeking compensation for injuries she incurred when she fell in a parking lot that was not owned by her employer, appellee Omaha Public Schools (OPS), but in which OPS encouraged her to park her vehicle and for which OPS provided transportation to the workplace. A single judge of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court dismissed La Croix's petition based on the "bright-line" premises rule set out by this court in Johnson v. Holdrege Med. Clinic, 249 Neb. 77, 541 N.W.2d 399 (1996). A panel of the Workers' Compensation Court affirmed. We conclude that there is a distinct, causal connection between OPS' sponsoring of the parking lot and the occurrence of La Croix's injury and therefore reverse, and remand for further proceedings.
The facts in this case are generally undisputed. La Croix was employed by OPS as a busdriver attendant or "driver's aide." The transportation operation center where La Croix worked had a parking lot available in front of the building, and some parking was available on one neighboring street. Additional parking was available at the Dill Field lot, a parking lot owned by the City of Omaha and located approximately two blocks away from the transportation center. OPS operated a shuttle bus to transport employees between the Dill Field lot and the transportation center where La Croix worked. Unless La Croix arrived at work several hours early, she was generally unable to find a parking space in the areas adjoining the transportation center. As a result, La Croix routinely parked in the Dill Field lot and utilized the shuttle provided by OPS, because no other parking was available.
When La Croix interviewed with OPS, she was told that if the lot adjoining the building was full, she was to park in the Dill Field lot and use the shuttle service. The record contains a memorandum to OPS employees encouraging them to use the Dill Field lot and use the shuttle service. However, the record indicates that employees were not absolutely required to park in the Dill Field lot and utilize the shuttle.
On May 29, 1996, La Croix slipped and fell in the Dill Field lot while on her way to board the shuttle bus. The area in which La Croix fell consisted of mud, covered by loose grass clippings. As a result of the fall, La Croix was injured and unable to work for approximately 11 weeks.
La Croix filed the instant workers' compensation action, and OPS denied that the
injury occurred as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. A single judge of the compensation court dismissed the petition based on the bright-line rule in Johnson v. Holdrege Med. Clinic, supra, which requires an employee to be injured on premises owned by the employer in order to receive workers' compensation. A panel of the compensation court affirmed, stating that although the facts presented an employer-sponsored parking lot exception as discussed by the three-judge concurrence in Johnson, the compensation court was bound by the bright-line rule adopted by the majority. See Johnson v. Holdrege Med. Clinic, supra (Gerrard, Wright, and Connolly, JJ., concurring).
La Croix assigns that the panel erred as a matter of law in applying the bright-line premises rule.
There is no factual dispute in this case. The question presented, whether the injury arose out of and in the course of La Croix's employment, is clearly one of law, in connection with which a reviewing court has an obligation to reach its own conclusions independent of those reached by the inferior courts. Johnson v. Holdrege Med. Clinic, 249 Neb. 77, 541 N.W.2d 399 (1996).
La Croix contends that because OPS encouraged employees to use the Dill Field lot and provided transportation to work from the lot, she should be able to recover workers' compensation benefits even though OPS does not own the lot. Thus, La Croix urges this court to allow recovery for injuries that occur in parking lots not owned by the employer when the employer has acted to provide parking in the lot or otherwise sponsored use of the lot.
Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-101 (Reissue 1993) compensates injury caused an employee by an accident arising out of and in the course of his or her employment. Johnson v. Holdrege Med. Clinic, supra.
The phrases "arising out of" and "in the course of" in § 48-101 are conjunctive; in order to recover, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that both conditions exist. Cox v. Fagen Inc., 249 Neb. 677, 545 N.W.2d 80 (1996); Johnson v. Holdrege Med. Clinic, supra.
The phrase "arising out of," as used in § 48-101, describes the accident and its origin, cause, and character, i.e., whether it resulted from the risks arising within the scope of the employee's job; the phrase "in the course of," as used in § 48-101, refers to the time, place, and circumstances surrounding the accident. Cox v. Fagen Inc., supra; Johnson v. Holdrege Med. Clinic, supra.
An injury sustained by an employee while going to and from work, at a fixed place of employment, does not arise out of and in the course of employment. See, Johnson v. Holdrege Med. Clinic, supra; P.A.M. v. Quad L. Assocs., 221 Neb. 642, 380 N.W.2d 243 (1986); Acton v. Wymore School Dist. No. 114, 172 Neb. 609, 111 N.W.2d 368 (1961). This rule is usually referred to as the "going and coming" rule or the "premises" rule. See Livingstone v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zoucha v. Touch of Class Lounge
...work only if that injury occurred on premises owned by the employer. See id. But we abandoned that rule in La Croix v. Omaha Public Schools, 254 Neb. 1014, 582 N.W.2d 283 (1998), and adopted the current rule set forth [8] Our current formulation of the "going to and coming from work" rule, ......
-
Holsapple v. Union Pacific R. Co.
...have considered whether an employee is acting within the course and scope of employment for workers' compensation purposes. In La Croix v. Omaha Public Schools,41 the plaintiff was encouraged by her employer to park in a parking lot not owned by the employer and to use a shuttle service sup......
- Anderson v. Omaha Public School Dist.
-
Torres v. Aulick Leasing, Inc., S-00-1187.
...court has an obligation to reach its own conclusions independent of those reached by the inferior court. La Croix v. Omaha Public Schools, 254 Neb. 1014, 582 N.W.2d 283 (1998). Going To and From Work Rule Torres first claims that the trial court erred in applying the going to and from work ......
-
Zoucha v. Touch of Class Lounge: the Supreme Court of Nebraska Distorted Provisions of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act and Misapplied the Parking Lot Rule
...injury to be compensable). 3. Zoucha, 269 Neb. at 93, 690 N.W.2d at 615. 4. Id. at 93, 690 N.W.2d at 615. 5. La Croix v. Omaha Pub. Sch., 254 Neb. 1014, 1017, 582 N.W.2d 283, 285 (1998). The court stated the rule is also known as the premises rule. Id. 6. Zoucha, 269 Neb. at 94, 690 N.W.2d ......