Merrill v. J. C. Penney

• Decision Date: 15 July 1977
• Docket Number: No. 47105,47105
• Citation: 256 N.W.2d 518
• Parties: Theresa J. MERRILL, Respondent, v. J. C. PENNEY and Travelers Insurance Company, Relators, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 518

256 N.W.2d 518

Theresa J. MERRILL, Respondent, v. J. C. PENNEY and Travelers Insurance Company, Relators Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

No. 47105.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 15, 1977.

Cousineau, McGuire, Shaughnessy & Anderson and Robert J. McGuire, Minneapolis, for relators.

Grose, Von Holtum, Von Holtum, Sieben & Schmidt and Timothy J. McCoy, Minneapolis, for Merrill.

Van Eps & Gilmore and Michael Forde, Minneapolis, for Liberty Mutual.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

PER CURIAM.

The Worker's Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed an award of compensation benefits to Theresa J. Merrill for disability caused by injuries she sustained in December 1972 and April 1973 while an employee of J. C. Penney Company. Employer and Travelers Insurance Company, its insurer at the time of the 1972 injury, sought review of the decision, challenging the board's finding that this injury arose out of and in the course of Mrs. Merrill's employment. We affirm.

Employee worked at Penney's store in Brookdale, a shopping center owned by Dayton Hudson Corporation. Dayton Hudson retained control over the parking lots and other common areas in the center, entering into leases which obligated it to furnish its tenants and their customers parking space and required the tenants to pay on a pro rata basis the cost of maintaining the parking facilities. Most of the year Penney's employees parked in an area near the store. A few weeks before Christmas 1972, Dayton Hudson sent a directive to Penney's stating that Penney's employees should park in the more distant overflow parking lot so that a greater number of customers could obtain parking spaces near the stores in the center. Penney's store manager approved the directive and placed it on the employees' bulletin board. He testified that Penney's was responsible for enforcing the directive.

Employee was injured when she fell in the overflow parking lot on December 19 shortly before her workday was to begin. Penney's and Travelers contend she did not sustain a compensable injury because the fall did not occur on Penney's premises and because she had been exposed only to risks to which the public as a whole was exposed and not to hazards peculiar to her employment.

The relevant statute, Minn.St. 176.011, subd. 16, provides in part:

" 'Personal injury' means injury arising out of and in the course of employment * * * but does not cover an employee except while engaged in, on, or about the premises where his services require his presence as part of such services at the time of the injury and during the hours of said service."

Because of the "premises" requirement, an employee injured in going to or away from the place he works ordinarily is not entitled to benefits unless he is engaged in a special service for his employer. 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 15.00. Employee contends, however, that her injury occurred on Penney's premises.

This court has not considered whether a shopping center parking lot, owned, maintained, and controlled by the owner of the center but available for its tenants' use pursuant to leases which require them to pay pro rata the cost of maintaining the lot, can be a part of a tenant-employer's premises. We have recognized that premises may cover an area greater than the actual working place of the employee. In Goff v. Farmers Union Accounting Service, Inc., Minn., 241 N.W.2d 315 (1976), a parking lot across the street from the building in which the employee worked, used by employees and the public and not owned by...