Jones v. Ridgewood Health Care Center, Inc.

• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DROWOTA; FONES
• Citation: Jones v. Ridgewood Health Care Center, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 375 (Tenn. 1983)
• Decision Date: 02 May 1983
• Parties: Mrs. Essie JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIDGEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 650 S.W.2d 375

Page 375

650 S.W.2d 375

Mrs. Essie JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIDGEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

650 S.W.2d 375

Supreme Court of Tennessee at Jackson.

May 2, 1983.

L.L. Harrell, Jr., Trenton, for plaintiff-appellant.

Fred Collins, Milan, for defendant-appellee.

OPINION

DROWOTA, Justice.

The sole issue raised in this worker's compensation appeal is whether the employee's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. The trial court found that the injuries sustained by Appellant, Mrs. Essie Jones, did not occur while she was using a route required by her employer and that her injuries did not, therefore, arise out of and in the course of her employment. Appellant appeals from the dismissal of her claim.

Appellant, at the time of the accident, was employed as a licensed practical nurse at a nursing home owned and operated by the Defendant, Ridgewood Health Care Center, Inc. Mrs. Jones worked the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift. On the morning of January 30, 1981, at approximately 7:00 A.M., she clocked out and exited Defendant's building by the cafeteria door which was located closest to the time clock. As she was walking to her car, which was parked in the rear parking lot, she slipped and fell on some ice which had accumulated on the sidewalk, and was injured. Icy conditions prevailed throughout the area that day.

The Defendant maintained two parking lots, one at the rear of the building and one at the front of the building. Both parking lots were for the use and convenience of employees and guests.

There was conflicting testimony as to whether or not employees were told to enter and exit Defendant's building through the rear cafeteria door and to park their cars in the rear parking lot. Plaintiff and her witnesses testified that they were specifically instructed to park in the rear lot and to use the rear door closest to the cafeteria. The Defendant's director of nurses testified that there was no requirement that the employees park in any particular lot or that the staff enter or leave by any particular door. Three other defense witnesses stated that they were never told where to park or which door to use in entering or exiting the building.

Generally, under the law governing worker's compensation, employees injured while en route to or from work are not entitled to benefits, the rationale being that during these times no service is being provided for the employer, and, therefore, such injuries cannot be said to arise out of and in the course of employment, the test for compensable injuries under T.C.A. Secs. 50-902(d) and 50-903. Harper v. Daun Ray Casuals, Inc., 596 S.W.2d 822, 823 (Tenn.1980). There are certain well-recognized exceptions to this rule, and these have been discussed and delineated in great detail in numerous decisions, both reported and unreported. One of the more recent decisions of this Court which articulates the exception to the general rule is Woods v. Warren, 548 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn.1977), which states:

... in order to avoid the application of the general rule of non-liability for an injury sustained en route to or from work, the employee must show that:

a. At the time of the injury he was using a route required or furnished by the employer; and such route was on the premises of the employer and b. The use of the required route subjects the employee to a definite special hazard, or

c. That the risks of travel are directly incident to the employment itself.

All of this is qualified by the fact that the "premises" are that part of the property where the employee actually works or which he is required to use for ingress and egress. (Citations omitted.)

548 S.W.2d at 655.

Appellant contends "that she was parked in a lot which had been designated by her employer to her as being a required parking area, and further, that she had been instructed both to enter and exit from one door which is located in the cafeteria near the time clock, and being at the rear of the building." She thus avers that she was using a required route which subjected her to a definite...