Rockwell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., A00A2433.

Citation248 Ga. App. 73,545 S.E.2d 121
Decision Date30 January 2001
Docket NumberNo. A00A2433.,A00A2433.
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
PartiesROCKWELL v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Eastman & Apolinsky, Stephen D. Apolinsky, Decatur, for appellant.

Downey & Cleveland, Russell B. Davis, Alan J. Gibson, Marietta, for appellee.

MILLER, Judge.

Doris Rockwell sued her employer, Lockheed Martin Corporation, for injuries she sustained when she fell in Lockheed's parking lot. Arguing that Rockwell's claim is barred by the exclusive remedy of the Workers' Compensation Act,1 Lockheed moved for summary judgment. The trial court agreed and granted Lockheed's motion. Rockwell appeals this grant, and we affirm.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2 We apply a de novo standard of review from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.3

So viewed, the evidence showed that while traveling across a walkway on her way to the parking lot for her scheduled lunch break, Rockwell's foot was caught on the handle of a metal dumpster lid causing her to fall, injuring her face, gums, and arm. While Rockwell was in the hospital, she was told by a representative of Lockheed's workers' compensation department that she had no claim for benefits because she had been on her lunch break. Rockwell's former counsel concluded that, based on Lockheed's responses to his request for admissions, Rockwell's injury arguably did not occur during the course of her employment, and he therefore recommended that Rockwell pursue a claim of negligence. As a result, Rockwell sued in tort alleging negligence as well as nuisance and fraud and argues on appeal that Lockheed cannot deny her benefits and still contend that her tort claim is barred by the Workers' Compensation Act.

Generally, where an employee is on a scheduled break and is not conducting her employer's business, the Workers' Compensation Act does not apply.4 But the "ingress and egress" rule is equally clear: Where the employee is still on her employer's premises in the act of egressing those premises, even if on break, then the Workers' Compensation Act does apply.5 Therefore, Lockheed may not deny Rockwell benefits based on the inapplicable "scheduled break" exception.

Both parties were requested by this Court to file supplemental briefs that address the issue of whether Rockwell's workers' compensation claim would still be viable. Although Lockheed contends that it does not know the status of Rockwell's claim, Rockwell concedes that her workers' compensation claim was filed within one year of the incident, it has not been dismissed, and she is still within the five years to request a hearing.6

Therefore, as the Workers' Compensation Act is Rockwell's exclusive remedy, and Rockwell still has an opportunity to pursue her workers' compensation claim, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to Lockheed in this tort...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Frett v. State Farm Emp. Workers' Comp.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 16 Junio 2020
    ...was further extended, quite logically, to employees who were leaving their workplace to go to lunch. See Rockwell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 248 Ga. App. 73, 73, 545 S.E.2d 121 (2001) (exclusive workers’ compensation remedy applied to employee who was injured on her way to the employer's par......
  • Frett v. State Farm Emp. Workers' Comp.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 2 Noviembre 2018
    ...total disability benefits and medical expenses arising from her fall, relying upon this Court’s decision in Rockwell v. Lockheed Martin Corp. , 248 Ga. App. 73, 545 S.E.2d 121 (2001). The State Board of Workers' Compensation (the "Board") reversed the ALJ’s award, concluding that Frett’s in......
  • Johnson v. Publix Supermarkets
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 16 Julio 2002
    ...has not been used before to present additional barriers to an employee who falls at work. See, e.g., Rockwell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 248 Ga.App. 73, 545 S.E.2d 121 (2001) (Act applies to fall in parking lot). Rather, the doctrine has been used to address situations outside the work norm.......
  • Daniel v. Bremen-Bowdon Inv., Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 14 Julio 2021
    ...on the sidewalk and was injured. 348 Ga. App. at 803, 824 S.E.2d 698. Relying on this Court's decision in Rockwell v. Lockheed Martin Corp. , 248 Ga. App. 73, 545 S.E.2d 121 (2001), an Administrative Law Judge with the trial division of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation ("ALJ") concl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, Katherine D. Dixon, and Marion H. Martin
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 54-1, September 2002
    • Invalid date
    ...424 S.E.2d 874 (1992)). 14. Id. (quoting Peoples, 206 Ga. App. at 214, 424 S.E.2d at 876); See also Rockwell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 248 Ga. App. 73, 545 S.E.2d 121 (2001). 15. Id. 16. 254 Ga. App. 156, 561 S.E.2d 483 (2002). 17. Id. at 156-57, 561 S.E.2d at 486. 18. Id. at 156, 561 S.E.2......
  • Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, and Katherine D. Dixon
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 56-1, September 2004
    • Invalid date
    ...597 S.E.2d at 429. 119. Id. at 539, 597 S.E.2d at 429-30. See O.C.G.A. Sec. 34-9-102(i) (2004). 120. Rockwell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 248 Ga. App. 73, 545 S.E.2d 121 (2001). 121. Id. at 73, 545 S.E.2d at 121 (citations omitted). 122. 263 Ga. App. 792, 589 S.E.2d 346 (2003). 123. Id. at 79......
  • Worker's Compensation
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 71-1, January 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...at 98-99, 816 S.E.2d at 60 (Bethel, J., concurring).31. 348 Ga. App. 30, 821 S.E.2d 132 (2018). 32. Id. at 30, 821 S.E.2d at 133-34.33. 248 Ga. App. 73, 545 S.E.2d 121 (2001).34. Frett, 348 Ga. App. at 30, 821 S.E.2d at 134; Rockwell, 248 Ga. App. at 73, 545 S.E.2d at 122.35. Frett, 348 Ga.......
  • Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, Katherine D. Dixon, and Marion Handley Martin
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 53-1, September 2001
    • Invalid date
    ...84. 209 Ga. App. 703, 434 s.e.2d 500 (1993). 85. Id. at 703-04, 434 S.E.2d at 500-01. 86. 246 Ga. App. at 875, 542 S.E.2d at 615. 87. 248 Ga. App. 73, 545 S.E.2d 121 (2001). 88. Id. at 73, 545 S.E.2d at 121-22. 89. Id., 545 S.E.2d at 122 (citing Swanson v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 181 Ga. A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT