Phillips v. Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. of R.I., LLC.
| Decision Date | 06 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-120-M.P.,17-738 |
| Citation | 273 A.3d 609 |
| Parties | Doris PHILLIPS v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF RHODE ISLAND, LLC. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
John M. Harnett, Esq., for Petitioner.
Michael Edwards, Esq., for Respondent.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
This case presents an opportunity for this Court to revisit an exception to the going-and-coming rule as it was articulated over thirty-five years ago in Branco v. Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc. , 518 A.2d 621 (R.I. 1986). Specifically, we are asked to consider whether the Branco exception precludes recovery of workers’ compensation dependency benefits for an employee's fatal injuries sustained while traveling from an employer's facility to a separate parking lot that is leased, rather than owned, by the employer.
The petitioner, Doris Phillips, seeks review of a decree of the Appellate Division of the Workers’ Compensation Court (Appellate Division) denying and dismissing her petition for surviving-spouse compensation benefits and funeral expenses. The Appellate Division vacated a prior decree of a judge of the Workers’ Compensation Court granting the petition and held that the going-and-coming rule precluded petitioner from recovering dependency benefits for the fatal injuries sustained by her husband, Joseph Phillips, while he was employed by the respondent, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Rhode Island, LLC (Enterprise). This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised on review should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we quash the decree of the Appellate Division.
The underlying facts of this case are largely undisputed. Joseph Phillips was employed as a driver for Enterprise.1 On December 15, 2016, Joseph died as a result of a motor vehicle accident on Jefferson Boulevard. At the time of his death, Joseph was married and living with his wife, petitioner.
On February 2, 2017, petitioner filed a petition in the Workers’ Compensation Court for compensation benefits of a deceased employee. She sought weekly benefits pursuant to G.L. 1956 §§ 28-33-12 and 28-33-23, as well as funeral expenses pursuant to § 28-33-16. On February 21, 2017, a Workers’ Compensation Court trial judge issued a pretrial order denying the petition. The petitioner then filed a timely claim for trial pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 28-35-20(d), and the trial judge conducted a trial on June 12, 2018.
At trial, six witnesses testified, all of whom were Enterprise employees at the time of the accident. Kristen Piccolo testified as a human resources manager for Enterprise. Frederick Webber testified as an Enterprise dispatcher, a position that functioned as a supervisor for the drivers. Michael Pezzullo, Robert Clarkin, Russell Flanagan, and Richard Dion all testified as Enterprise drivers. Additionally, the parties submitted several exhibits, including a police report detailing the accident, schematics and aerial photos of a parking lot across the street from Enterprise, and three leases between Enterprise and other entities for parking spaces.
All witnesses other than Piccolo worked at the Jefferson Boulevard Enterprise facility, which was located at 99 Jefferson Boulevard in Warwick. Piccolo and Webber testified that onsite parking at the Enterprise facility was generally not available for Enterprise drivers; rather, it was reserved for employees who worked within the facility all day, such as auto technicians, supervisors, and maintenance workers. Pezzullo also testified that drivers were generally not permitted to park onsite at the facility.
All witnesses testified that Enterprise made other parking spaces available for drivers to park their personal vehicles. Trial exhibits 4, 5, and 6 indicate that Enterprise leased parking spaces in three parking lots. Webber corroborated these exhibits by testifying that he believed Enterprise leased the lots and did not own them. One lot sat across from the facility at 110 Jefferson Boulevard; the others were much farther away.
All the driver witnesses testified that they generally parked in the 110 Jefferson Boulevard lot across the street from the facility. Clarkin testified that an Enterprise employee told him to park in that lot. Pezzullo, Flanagan, and Dion each testified specifically that Webber had told them to park in that lot. Webber also testified that, on a driver's first day, he would show the driver the parking lot across the street as the lot where they would be parking.
All witnesses testified that Enterprise also maintained a shuttle service for drivers. Piccolo testified that Enterprise did not have a written policy concerning parking or the shuttle, but rather had "a procedure that's been addressed to all employees[,]" which called for drivers to park at the 110 Jefferson Boulevard lot and take the shuttle to get to 99 Jefferson Boulevard. However, Piccolo also stated that drivers could choose to cross Jefferson Boulevard on foot. According to Piccolo, Enterprise preferred that drivers use the shuttle service, but there was nothing in the employee handbook that prevented drivers from walking, or indeed, that outlined the parking and shuttle procedures. Piccolo further testified that Webber oversaw the shuttle's operation.
Webber testified that the shuttle was one option for drivers to get from a leased parking lot to the facility; the other options were walking or, if a driver arrived to work late, calling the office for a ride. He stated that, in the morning, the shuttle was usually an Enterprise minivan driven by the first driver to arrive. Webber also testified that the shuttle was available to drivers both at the beginning and end of their shifts. However, Webber testified that the shuttle service operated differently for drivers who returned to the facility after hours.
According to both Piccolo and Webber, Enterprise drivers commonly delivered vehicles from the Jefferson Boulevard facility to other Enterprise locations in the area. Piccolo and Webber both testified that, as drivers delivered a car to another location, they were generally followed by a chase driver, who then drove both himself and the delivering driver back to the base facility after the delivered car was dropped off.
When drivers returned to Jefferson Boulevard after hours, Webber testified, the shuttle service did not operate the way it did in the morning, when a company minivan ferried back and forth from the facility to the parking lot.2 Instead, the chase driver would first bring the drivers back to their personal vehicles in the parking lot across the street from the facility, and then drive the van to the facility. The chase driver could then be picked up at the facility by a driver who drove his own personal vehicle from the parking lot to the facility, and then drove himself and the chase driver back to the parking lot—the "shuttle service" for after-hours referred to this process. However, Pezzullo, who frequently operated as a chase driver, testified that most often the drivers he dropped off at their vehicles would drive directly home. Pezzullo stated that, although some drivers did offer to ferry him back from the facility to the parking lot in their personal vehicles, his being accompanied by another driver to the facility and receiving a ride back from the facility to the parking lot after hours was a "very rare occasion[.]"
Pezzullo and Dion testified as to the events of December 15, 2016. Both testified that they were dispatched to Connecticut together, along with Joseph; Joseph and Dion were assigned to deliver rental vehicles, and Pezzullo followed them as the chase driver. Both also testified that, after delivering their vehicles, they returned to Warwick around 7 p.m., when it was quite dark.
Both witnesses further testified that Pezzullo drove directly to the parking lot across the street from the facility rather than to the facility itself. According to both witnesses, all three men had parked their personal vehicles in the parking lot that day. Both witnesses stated that, once Pezzullo arrived at the parking lot, only Dion left the chase van and got into his vehicle; Joseph stayed inside the chase van with Pezzullo. Dion indicated that, after he got into his personal vehicle, he drove away from the parking lot. Pezzullo testified that Joseph offered to ride with him in the van to the facility and then walk back to the parking lot with him and that, although Pezzullo told him it was not necessary, Joseph said he would be glad to.
According to Pezzullo, he then drove himself and Joseph across the street to the facility, where he parked the chase van. Pezzullo testified that at that point the facility was closed, so he was not able to clock out; instead, he put everything he had that was related to the assignment, such as the van keys and paperwork, into the company drop box. He also testified that Joseph dropped off his paperwork as well. Pezzullo further testified that, after dropping off their paperwork, he and Joseph walked together until a certain point and then split to cross Jefferson Boulevard to the parking lot. According to the police report provided as an uncontested exhibit at trial, Joseph was struck by at least one vehicle while crossing Jefferson Boulevard, and died as a result. Pezzullo saw the accident occur as Joseph crossed the street.
On June 19, 2018, the trial judge issued a decision in which she found that Phillips’ claim was not barred by the going-and-coming rule. Instead, the trial judge found that the Branco exception applied notwithstanding that Enterprise leased the employee parking spaces in the parking lot across the...
To continue reading
Request your trial