 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Collie Concessions3/30/2005
from which Bruce was walking when she was struck was not owned, controlled, or maintained by her employer. Like the employer in Spearman, Collie Concessions was allocated a certain number of spaces in the Cherry Lane lot, which spaces were given to employees on a first come first serve basis. Thus, the lot was not a part of Collie Concessions's premises.
2. Some decisions imply that a claim is within the exception when the parking lot is maintained or controlled by the employer. However, a careful review of those cases shows that the control or maintenance of the lot must exist in conjunction with the ownership or lease thereof to support a finding that the parking lot exception applies. In the case at bar, the ALJ found as fact that the Cherry Lane lot was controlled by Augusta National. That finding is supported by some evidence because agents of Augusta National gave out permits to park in the lot and restricted access to it.
The full board in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law found that Augusta National "owned and controlled the use" of the Cherry Lane lot during the tournament because Augusta National was the "owner" of Berckman Residential Properties, LLC. If that assertion is a finding of fact, it is unsupported by the evidence; if it is a conclusion of law, it is erroneous. Augusta National was indeed the sole member of the LLC. But a member of a limited liability company does not own property owned by the LLC. Clearly Augusta National controlled the Cherry Lane lot. But mere control, in the absence of ownership or a lease, has not yet been enough to invoke the parking lot exception.
It is true that the Workers' Compensation Act should be given a liberal construction "to effectuate the humane purposes for which was enacted." But the parking lot exception already liberalized the Act. We have always confined that exception to instances where the transit was to or from a parking lot owned, or leased, by the employer. The Cherry Lane lot was not owned or leased by Augusta National or by Collie Concessions. Therefore the parking lot exception does not apply, and the injury was not compensable.
3. In addition, we reject the superior court's conclusion that the "temporary pedestrian crosswalk was part of the employer's premises since it was constructed for use only during the week of the Masters and was not present during any other time of the year." The claimant in her brief admitted that Berckman Road is a public street. Neither the special purpose of the crosswalk, nor its brief duration, gave ownership and control of the street to Collie Concessions or to Augusta National. Peoples v. Emory University, cited by the superior court, does not establish otherwise. In Peoples, the claimant, a janitor who worked at Emory Law School, was injured after crashing his bike while on a campus street owned by his employer, Emory University. He had already passed the law school building and was traveling to another building to sign in and obtain keys. As he was injured on property owned, maintained and controlled by Emory, we held that his injury arose out of and in the course of his job pursuant to the "ingress and egress" rule. The fact that Emory owned the street on which the claimant was injured distinguishes Peoples from the instant case, and the superior court erred in relying on it.
The court also erred in concluding that the crosswalk should be treated no differently than other parts of Augusta National for the purpose of workers' compensation coverage. In so holding, the court relied on De Howitt v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. De Howitt, however, is distinguishable. In De Howitt, it was held that " here the employer's place of business is located in a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Georgia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|