Jesco, Inc. v. Cain
| Docket Number: | 2006-WC-00528-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-24-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Going and coming rule - Special hazards exception - Premises exception Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-23-2006 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: AFFIRMED THE RULING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION THAT WORKER’S INJURY WAS COMPENSABLE AND REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE BENEFITS UNDER THE ACT. Case Number: CV05-149(G)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JESCO, INC. AND ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY |
THOMAS A. WEBB |
||
| Appellee: | DOUGLAS CAIN | DAVID O. BUTTS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Workers’ compensation - Going and coming rule - Special hazards exception - Premises exception |
| Summary of the Facts: | Douglas Cain filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer Jesco, Inc., and its insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company, for injuries sustained when he was hit by a car. The Workers’ Compensation Commission ruled in Cain’s favor. The circuit court affirmed the Commission’s decision and remanded the case to determine Cain’s benefits. Jesco appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Jesco argues that Cain’s injury is not job related since he had not yet clocked-in at work that morning. In workers’ compensation cases, the general rule is that hazards encountered by employees while going to or returning from their regular place of work and off the employer’s premises are not incident to employment and accidents arising therefrom are not compensable. Exceptions to this include where the employer furnishes the means of transportation, or remunerates the employee; where the employee performs some duty in connection with his employment at home; where the employee is injured by some hazard or danger which is inherent in the conditions along the route necessarily used by the employee; where the employer furnishes a hazardous route; where the injury results from a hazardous parking lot furnished by the employer; where the place of injury, although owned by one other than the employer, is in such close proximity to the premises owned by the employer as to be, in effect, a part of such premises; or when the employee is on a special mission or errand for his employer, or where the employee is accommodating his employer in an emergency situation. The special hazards exception applies when there is the presence of a special hazard at the particular off-premises point, and the close association of the access route with the premises, so far as going and coming are concerned. Cain was hit while crossing the street between the Garfield parking lot and work. The parking lot was right across the street from Jesco’s work site on the hospital premises. Particularly, the work site included a trailer located on the south side (Garfield Street side) of the hospital and the critical care unit, on the south side second floor of the hospital. Employees had to report to the tool trailer to clock in. After parking in the employee parking lot, employees crossed Garfield Street on foot. Jesco’s shifts started at 6:00 a.m. The accident occurred at 5:45 a.m. in February, and it was dark outside. There were no lights in the parking lot or on the street. There were no traffic signals or crosswalks. Thus, there was substantial credible evidence to support the Commission’s finding that a special hazard existed at the off-premises accident site. The route taken by Cain was the common and direct route between the parking lot and the hospital. Moreover, Jesco required its employees to park in this lot, otherwise it would take disciplinary action. This was substantial credible evidence to support the Commission’s finding there is a close association of the access route with the premises, so far as going and coming are concerned. The place of injury was Garfield Street, which is not owned by Jesco. Although Jesco did not own the employee parking lot, Jesco received permission and authority from the hospital to use this parking lot for Jesco’s employees as well. Thus, the parking lot became part of Jesco’s work premises. Because Cain was using Garfield Street en route between two noncontiguous work site premises, his injury arose out of his employment. The Commission’s ruling of compensability is affirmed and the case remanded for a determination of benefits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
