Tate v. Bruno's Inc./Food Max, A91A0615
| Decision Date | 27 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A0615,A91A0615 |
| Citation | 408 S.E.2d 456,200 Ga.App. 395 |
| Parties | TATE v. BRUNO'S INC./FOOD MAX. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Dozier, Akin, Lee & Graham, Neal B. Graham, Macon, for appellant.
Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, R. Napier Murphy, Macon, for appellee.
Tate appeals the trial court's denial of her claim for workers' compensation benefits under OCGA § 34-9-1 on the basis that her injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.
Tate was employed at a Food Max store which was located on one end of a plaza shopping center. The shopping center parking lot, which was adjacent to the Food Max store on one side and was bordered on the other side by a road, was available for both public and employee use.
On October 16, 1989, Tate parked her car close to the street in one of the spaces farthest from the store. She worked her shift, completed her work and clocked out, and walked directly from the Food Max store to her car. She started her car, let it warm up for a few minutes, and began to back out of her parking space. Before she had traveled one car length, a truck collided with her vehicle. Approximately ten minutes elapsed between her clocking out of Food Max and the accident.
Food Max did not own the parking lot in which the accident occurred and did not direct, control or maintain the lot. The parking lot was used by patrons and employees of all the shopping center stores. No specific parking spaces were reserved for Food Max employees, though the employees customarily parked in the lot and Food Max provided no other parking facility for them. The board found that Food Max employees were reasonably expected to use the parking lot and were directed to park farther from the store to allow customers to use the closer parking spaces.
The ALJ denied Tate's workers' compensation claim on the basis that the accident was not in the course of her employment. The full board reversed the ALJ, holding that Tate was entitled to the benefits. The superior court reversed the board and denied Tate's claim for benefits. From this ruling, Tate appeals.
1. In order to determine whether the injury in this case arose out of, or in the course of employment so as to entitle Tate to benefits, it is necessary to examine the two competing applicable principles here. First, there is the general rule that injuries sustained by an employee while going to or from work are not compensable. Corbin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 117 Ga.App. 823, 162 S.E.2d 226 (1968). On the other hand, it is well-settled that "[t]he period of employment generally includes a reasonable time for ingress to and egress from the place of work, while on the employer's premises." (Emphasis supplied). Knight-Ridder Newspaper etc. v. Desselle, 176 Ga.App. 174, 175, 335 S.E.2d 458 (1985). The latter rule is "predicated on the rationale that until the employee has actually departed the premises, he has not 'started traveling a route of (his) choosing wholly disconnected with (his) employment.' " [Cits.] Southern Bell Tel. etc. Co. v. Conyers Toyota, 190 Ga.App. 792, 793, 380 S.E.2d 296 (1989).
The intersection of these competing principles has led to the development of an exception to the general rule that going and coming from work is not a compensable event. That carved exception provides that when an employee is injured in, or going to and from, a parking lot which is owned or maintained by the employer the incident is compensable under workers' compensation since the injury arose during the employee's ingress or egress from employment. See, e.g., Federal Ins. Co. v. Coram, 95 Ga.App. 622, 624, 98 S.E.2d 214 (1957); Labelle v. Lister, 192 Ga.App. 464, 385 S.E.2d 118 (1989).
Providing workers' compensation coverage for employee injuries in, or going to and from, parking lots which are owned or maintained by the employer, is a logical application of the rule that an injury occurring during working hours on the employer's premises is a compensable event. See, e.g., Miles v. Brown Transport Corp., 163 Ga.App. 563, 294 S.E.2d 734 (1982). In Federal Ins. Co., supra, which involved a parking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Camarena
...compensation since the injury arose during the employee’s ingress or egress from employment." Tate v. Bruno’s, Inc./Food Max , 200 Ga. App. 395, 396-397 (1), 408 S.E.2d 456 (1991) (emphasis omitted). This "parking lot rule, in effect, extends the employer’s premises to include parking lots ......
-
Smith v. State, Dept. of Labor and Indus. Relations
...as to render area part of employer's "premises" for purposes of determining applicability of premises rule); Tate v. Bruno's Inc./Food Max, 200 Ga.App. 395, 408 S.E.2d 456 (1991) (injury sustained by store employee in shopping center parking lot not compensable where both shopping center st......
-
Peoples v. Emory University
...includes a reasonable time for ingress to and egress from the place of work, while on the employer's premises. Tate v. Bruno's/Food Max, 200 Ga.App. 395, 396(1), 408 S.E.2d 456; Crawford v. Meyer, 195 Ga.App. 867, 395 S.E.2d 327; Labelle v. Lister, 192 Ga.App. 464, 465(1), 385 S.E.2d 118; S......
-
Collie Concessions, Inc. v. Bruce
...33 Ga.App. 299, 126 S.E. 271 (1925); Thornton v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 198 Ga. 786, 32 S.E.2d 816 (1945). 7. 200 Ga.App. 395, 408 S.E.2d 456 (1991). 8. (Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Id. at 396-397(1), 408 S.E.2d 456. 9. 95 Ga.App. 622, 98 S.E.2d 214 (1957) (Felton, C......
-
Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, and John G. Blackmon, Jr.
...644, 434 S.E.2d 87 (1993). 146. See generally Peoples v. Emory Univ., 206 Ga. App. 213, 424 S.E.2d 874 (1992); Tate v. Bruno's, Inc., 200 Ga. App. 395, 408 S.E.2d 456 (1991). 147. 209 Ga. App. at 644, 434 S.E.2d at 87. 148. Id. 149. Id, 434 S.E.2d at 87-88. 150. Id. at 645, 434 S.E.2d at 88......
-
Workers' Compensation
...Univ., 206 Ga. App. 213, 424 S.E.2d 874 (1992)).27. Smith, 352 Ga. App. 799, 835 S.E.2d at 715. (citing Tate v. Bruno's, Inc./Food Max, 200 Ga. App. 395, 408 S.E.2d 456 (1991)). 28. Smith, 352 Ga. App. 799, 835 S.E.2d at 715. (citing City of Atlanta v. Spearman, 209 Ga. App. 644, 434 S.E.2d......