WILLIAM G. JOHNSON: PAUL ARSON AND HIS SPARTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. Z.
JOHN R. TORT, JR.: JOHN R. TORT, LEITNER COURT ON BEHALF TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA AND THE PART
AT A LIBRARY. CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: CHRISTINE MILK TAR IRON HORN
BARBARITO ON BEE-OF R DON SPONT DENT DIANE S. LAPSLY NR SKON SON PLEASES GO AHEAD SUZ
STRANS IS MICHAEL DECIDED THE ISSUE OF WHETHER MRS. LAPSLY COMPENSABLE BASED ON STIP LATER
SET SF FACTS CHLS Z Z THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSE READY RULING STH FOR INJURIES TO
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO BE COMPENSABLE NOT ONLY MUST THE EMPLOYER OWE THE LOCATION OF THE
ACCIDENT HE MUST ALSO CONTROL THE EMPLOYEE'S USE OF THAT LOCATION. THAT ADDED AMOUNT
IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND FOR THAT REASON THE APPELLATE
DIVISION'S DECISION MUST BE REVERSE. MS. LAPSLEY WAS EMPLOY MONTH EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYED AT THE LIBRARY, THE LIBRARY IS LOCATED WITHIN A COMPLEX WHICH CONTAINS THE LIBRARY
PLAYING FIELDS AND THREE PARKING LOTS. IS IS THE LOTS OF POPE TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS
TO THE EMPLOYEES OF AND VISITORS TO THE LOIB BREER THE LOT A JAY CAN'T STOT LIBRARY WHERE
THIS ACCIDENT OCCURRED IS OWNED RGS MAINTAINED AND CONTROLLED BY THE TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA.
SPARTA USES THE LOT BOTH FOR ITS EMPLOYEES AND FOR VISITORS AT THE LIBRARY AND ON THE
TOWN OWNED IN THE COMPLEX. AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE LOT WAS BEING PLOWED BY MR.
AUSTIN WHO WAS EMPLOYED BY SPARTA AT A A SNOWPLOW OPERATOR, MRS. LAPSE P WAUG WALK WITH
HER HUSBAND ACROSS PARK LOT TO HER VEHICLE WHEN THEY WERE STRUCK WITH THE PLOW. ESTABLISHED
THAT MS. LAPSLEY'S OWNER, OWNED MAINTAINED AND KROELTD AREA WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED,
THE FACTS ESTABLISHED THAT MS. LAPSLEY WAS INJURED BY A FELLOW EMPLOYEE AND THE FACTS
ESTABLISHED THAT MS. LAPSLEY WAS IN THE PARKING LOT BECAUSE SHE HAD JUST FINISHED HER
WORK DAY AT THE LIBRARY AND NOT FOR SOME PURPOSE UNCONNECTED TO HER EMPLOYMENT.
THE ANALYSIS OF WHETHER MS. LAPSLEY'S INJURIES ARE COMPENSABLE STARTS WITH AN EXAMINATION
OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTE, N.J.S.A. 34 KOOR 15-36 PROVIDES
IN PARTS AS FOLLOWS: EMPLOYMENT SHAP SHALL BE DEEMED TO COMMENCE WHEN AN EMPLOYEE ARRIVES
ITS EMPLOYER'S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT TO REPORT FOR WORK AND SHALL TERMINATE WHEN THE THE
EMPLOYER LEAVE THE EMPLOYER ES PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. EX CLUGD AREAS NOT UNDER THE
CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER. THE QUESTION THEREFORE IS WHETHER MS. LAPSLEY WAS INJURED AT
HER PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, WAS THE TOWN OWNED PARKING LOT IMMEDIATELY A
JAY SKEN TO THE LIBRARY INCLUDED WITHIN HER PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. JUDGE LUTHER CORRECTLY
RULED THAT IT WAS AND AS A RESULT FOUND THAT HER INJURIES WERE COMPENSABLE. IN 1979 THE
LEGISLATURE AMENTD THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTE TO REPLACE THE GOING AND COMING RULE
WITH THE PREMISES RULE. IN LIVINGSTONE VERSUS ABRAHAM AND STRAUS THIS COURT XES OF TO
FINE COMPENSABLE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE BE BEING OBD BY A FELLOW
MRE AS SHE BAUKD FROM AN AREA OF A MALL PARK LOT WHERE SHE HAD BEEN TOLD TO PARK. THIS
COURT REVIEWED PREVIOUS CASES WHERE EMPLOYERS, EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN INJURED IN PARK LOTS
AND CONCLUDED THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTEND TO OVERTOURN THOSE DECISIONS WHEN IT
A DO THATTED THE PREPSZ RULE. THOSE DECISIONS GENERALLY HOLD THAT PARKING LOTS OWNED
RGS MAINTAINED OR USED BY EMPLOYERS FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING ARE PARKED ON THE EMPLOYER'S
PREPSZ. PORPLY LIVINGSTONE DID NOT REQUIRE THAT THE EMPLOYER HAVE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE
PARKING LOT. THIS COURT SPECIFICALLY STATED "THE FACT THAT NEAT OWNED MAINTAINED OR HAD
THE RIGHT EXCLUSIVELY TO YUSS THAT AREA OF THE LOT DOES NOT IN OUR VIEW RENDER HER INJURIES
NONCOMPETENCE AB. APPROXIMATELY 10 YOERS LATER THIS COURT DECIDED THAT CHRISTIAN SON
VERSUS MORGAN CASE. THERE THE EMPLOYEE WORKED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AS
A BRIDGE OPERATOR FRP THE BRIDGE OPERATOR'S WORK IN THREE SHACKS LOCATED ON THE BRIDGE.
AS MR. KRISTIANSEN WAS LEAVING WORK AND WALKING ON THE BRIDGE TO HIS CAR HE WAS RUN
FORTUNATELY STRUCK BY A VEHICLE AND KILLED MUCH HIS ESTATE FILED BOTH A PLAIN PETITION
AND A WRONGFUL DEATH AGAINST MR. CHIS KEN SEN'S EMPLOYER THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION WHICH OWNED THE BRIDGE. THE COURT, THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE INJURIES
WERE COMPENSABLE, AND THAT THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BAR PRECLUDE THE ESTATE FROM
PURSUING A WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT AGAINST N J DOT. THIS COURT A TICK LATE THE A NAL SI
OOS THE PIF YOU WILL UNDER THE PREMISES RULE ARE 1 WHERE WAS THE SITE OF THE ACCIDENT
AND DID THE EMPLOYER HAVE CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY IN WHICH THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED.
THE COURT WENT 0 TO STATE THAT "ALTHOUGH THE ACT DOES NOT DEFINE CONTROL, THIS COURT HAS
STATED THAT CONTROL EXISTS WHEN THE EMPLOYER OWNS, MAINTAINS, OR HAS EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE
PROPERTY. HERE N J DOT OWNED MAINTAINED AND CONTROL THE BRIDGE YES THE DE
CEDENT WAS WORKED AND FATAL INJURE MENT R RAMOS VERSUS M&F FASHION, THE EMPLOYEE WAS INJURED
WHEN HE FELL NO AN ELEVATOR SHAFT ON HIS WAY TO WORK. THIS COURT FOUND THAT THE EMPLOYER
CONTROLLED THE ELEVATOR BY ITS USE OF THE ELEVATOR IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS. IN
ADDITION, THE COURT STATED THAT THE FACT THAT M&F DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE
ELEVATOR DID NOT PLACE IT BEYOND IN M&F WORKPLACE PREMISES. BROWER VERSUS ICT GROUP A
DECISION WHICH THIS COURT DECIDED IN 2000 IS FACTUALLY SIMILAR TO RAMOS. THERE AN
EMPLOYEE HAD EN HE HAD ENDED HERB WORK DAY, PUNCHED OUT AND WAS DESCENDING ZIPS FROM HER
STREET TO A WORKPLACE IN A MULTITENANT OFFICE BUILDING FELL AND JURMENT THE 3 MAINS OF
ACCESS TO THE EMPLOYERS PREMISES OF SHE FILED A CLAIM FOR WOESHG CONSIDERS XEN SAEGS WAS
DENIED BY THE EMPLOYER AND BOTH THE AND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT AND THE APPELLATE
DIVISION. THE COURT RULED THAT THE ACCIDENT WAS COMPENSABLE. THE COURT, THIS COURT STATED
THE FACT "THE FACT THAT A PETITIONER HAD PUNCHED OUTER ON A TIME CLOCK DOES NOT PRECLUDE
COMPETENCE ABILITY BECAUSE THE SITUS OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE EMPLOYER'S CONTROL OF THAT
RPZ CONTROL ARE DISPOSITIVE FACTORS FRP THE COURT WENT ON TO CONCLUDE THAT THE FACT THAT THE
EMPLOYER KNEW ITS EMPLOYEES REGULARLY USED THAT STAIRWELL WAS ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH CONTROL.
THE NEXT AND WHAT APPEAR TO BE THE LAST TIM THIS COURT ADD DREF THE ISSUE WAS THE HERSH
VERSE COUNTY OF MORRIS CASE MUCH THERE THE PETITION NR WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COUNTY OF
MORRIS. HE WAS PERMITTED TO PARK HER VEHICLE IN ONE OF SEVERAL PARK GARAGES RENTED BY
THE COUNTY IN A PRIVATELY OWNED PARK GARAGE. ON THE DATE IN QUESTION, SHE HAD PARKED
HER VEHICLE AND WAS WALKING ACROSS A PUBLIC STREET WHEN SHE WAS STRUCK BY A MOTOR VEHICLE
AND INJURED. THE PLAINTIFF FILED A WORKERS XEN SAEGS CLAIM PETITION WHICH WAS OPPOSED.
BOTH THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION JUDGE AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION HELL THAT THE PLAINTIFF
'S INJURIES WERE COMPENSABLE. THE COULDN'T TEE APPEALED TO THIS COURT. IN YOUR ANALYSIS
THIS COURTS FUND THAT NEITHER THE PARK GARAGE WHERE THE PLAINTIFF HAD PARKED HER VEHICLE
NOR THE PUBLIC STREET ON WHICH SHE HAD BEEN INJURED WERE OWN, CONTROLLED OR MAINTAINED
BY THE KOUN TE. AND AS A RESULT, YOU HELD THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF OF THAT KASHGS
AN EMPLOYER HAD WAS INJURED ON A PUBLIC STREET NOT CONTROLLED BY BY THE EMPLOYER IS NOT
ENTITLED TO XEN SAEGS. PARAGRAPH PAG OF ALL THE CASES THAT THIS COURT HAS DECIDED SINCE
IS THE 1979 AMENDMENTS TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AK, ONLY ONE ADDRESSES A
SITUATION WHERE THE SITUS OF THE ACCIDENT IS OWNED AND MAEN TAND BY THE EMPLOYER. IN ALL
THOSE OTHER CASES YOU WERE ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A CLAIM COULD BE COMPENSABLE
EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYER DID NOT OWN THAT LOCATION. PARAGRAPH THE CASE THAT I'M
REFERRING TO IS THE KRES CHEN SEN KACHTS AT NAL SIS DEVELOPED IN THE KRISTIANSEN CANES
APPLIED M HERSH WHERE DID THE ACCIDENT OCCUR AND DID THE EMPLOYER HAVE CONTROL OF THAT
AREA. HERE, THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A PARKING LOT OWNED, MAINTAINED AND CONTROLLED BY
THE MRS. LAPSE'S EMPLOYER THE TOWNSHIP THE SPARTA. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLATE DIVISION
DOES NOT NEED REACH THE ISSUE THAT LIVINGSTON, RAMOS AND BROWER AND HERSH DID AND EXAMINE
WHETHER ARE THE EMPLOYER DID NOT OWN 0 MAINTAIN THE SITUS OF THE ACCIDENT THEY EXERCISED
CONTROL OVER THAT AREA. THE ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BY THE UNDISUT DISPUTE THE FAK THAT SPARTA
OERNGS MAIN TAENS AND CONTROLS AND USES THE PARKING LOT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLATE DIVISION
ADDED ANOTHER REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC ENTITIES LIKE SPARTA. NAMELY THAT BECAUSE PUBLIC
ENTITIES OWN SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY, THEY MUST ALSO CONTROL THE ROUTE WHICH MS. LAPSLEY
TOOK TO AND FROM WORK IN ORDER FOR HER INJURIES TO BE DPEN ABLG. NO CASE FROM THIS COURT
STANDS FOR THAT PROPOSITION. THE CHRIS KEN SEN DECISION DID NOT IMPOSE THAT ELEMENT EVEN
THOUGH THE BRIDGE ON WHICH THE DECEDENT WAS WALK K WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND HE WAS
STRUCK WITH A MOTOR VEHICLE BEING ON THATTED BAY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. IN
ADDITION, MR. KRISTIANSEN WORKED FOR THE D J DOT AND WAS A EFRPT TING TO SUE N J DOT A
PUBLIC ENTITIES WHICH LGS OWNED SIGNIFICANT PORGS OF PROP. INTH KAY THE APPELLATE DWRIGS
REVID ACIKGOZ CASE, COMPENSABLE WOULD MEAN THAT ANY INJURIES SHE SUFFERED IN ANY TOWN
OWNED LOT WOULD BE COMPENSABLE. THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION'S DECISION
STATES "TO CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER'S INJURIES WOULD BE COMPENSABLE ON ANY TOWN OWNED
LOT OR ROADWAY AFTER LEAVING THE LIBRARY PREMISES TO BE AN UNWARRENED AND OVERBROAD EXPANSION
OF MUST BE BLIK ENTITIES EX SPOEB TORE WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAMGS UNDER THE ACT.
MS. LAPSLEY WAS NOT INJURED IN ANY TOWN OWNED LOT OR ANY TOWN OWN ROADWAY,
SHE WAS INJURED IN A PARKING LOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE BRIBE BRAER. HER PLACE OF
EMPLOYMENT. ALTHOUGH THE LOT WAS OPEN TO AND USED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IT WAS ALSO
USED BY TOWN EMPLOYEES AND VISITORS, THE LOT WHAT OPEN, MAINTAINED, CONTROLLED AND USED
BY HER EMPLOYER, THE TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA. STHAU STRUCK WHEN A FELLOW EMPLOY WAS PLOWING
SNOW, AS SUCH, THIS COURT'S PRIOR DECISIONS PLEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED
ON HER EMPLOYER'S PREMISES AND IS COMPENSABLE AND THAT SHE WAS BARRED FROM PURSUING A
CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AGAINST HER EMPLOYER AND FELLOW EMPLOYEE. AS A RESULT, WRE
WOULD REQUEST THAT THIS COURT REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE MRT DIVISION AND RULE THAT
HER INJURIES ARE COMPENSABLE, AND THAT SHE BARRED FROM PURSUE AGO CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
MENT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: QUESTIONS ANYONE? ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE T
ADD. WILLIAMS WILLIAMS I'M HAPPY TO, I HAVE NOTHING TO ADDS. MR. TORT.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. JOHN R. TORT, JR.: TORT GOOD MORNING, JUSTICE
ES. AS I INDICATED MY NAME IS JOHN R TORT, JUNIOR AND I REPRESENT THE PETITIONER SPARTA
PUBLIC LIBRARY AN TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA. ON NOVEMBER 19, 2013, I STOOD BEFORE THIS
LEARNED BODY ON THE MATTER OF HERSH VERSUS THE COUNT TEE OF MORE RIS, HESH DECISION WAS
AUTHORIZED BY JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA VOOEN THAT. JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA:
IT WAS BRILLIANT, WASN'T IT. JOHN R. TORT, JR.: ON HIS FIRST DAY AS A
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. ACTUALLY CENTERED AROUND MANY OF THE SAME ISSUES AN
CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE THE COURT TODAY. WHILE THE LOCATION
OF AN ACCIDENT AND WHO CONTROLLED THE LOCATION ARE RIGHTFULLY MUCH WHAT IS ANALYZED IN
A PREMISES RULE WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASE, IT IS OFTEN OVERLOOKED ON THE PUBLIC POLICY
CONCERNS ATTACHED TO THESE TYPES OF CASES, PARTICULARLY WHEN DEALING WITH PUBLIC
ENTITIES. IN THEIR DECISION TO UNILATERALLY REVERSE THE PREMISES RULE THE
APPELLATE DIVISION HAS NOW EXPRESSED EMPLOYERS TO THE HAZARDS OF TORT LIABILITY WHICH HAVE
THE POTENTIAL TO BE ECONOMICALLY KRIP MRING. THIS ALSO PROHIBITS EMPLOYEES WITH BENEFITS
FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED AS HUMANE SOCIAL LEGISLATION
IF LEFT UNREVISED, THAT DECISION WILL LIKELY CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC KWENLSS TO THE
STATE'S PUBLIC, AS WELL AS THE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS. FURTHERMORE, IT IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY AND GOES AGAINST LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT. BECAUSE OF THE AM MEAL I DON'T REMEMBER RAT ACTIVE EFFECT
THAT THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION WAS INTENDED TO HAVE, INCLUDING, SWIFT, RECOMMEND COME
PENS FOR INJURED EMPLOYEES IS RIGHTFULLY CHARACTERIZED AS IMPORTANT SOCIAL LEGISLATION
ENTITLED TO LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION AND SET FORTH IN ITS INTRODUCTION, THE STATUTE IS TO BE
CONSTRUED TO BRING AS MANY CASES AS POSSIBLE WITHIN ITS COVERAGE. THE
APPELLATE DIVISION ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMES PUBLIC POLICY SOMEHOW FAVORS TORT LIABILITY OVER
WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS WHICH IS QUITE THE OPPOSITE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF
AN EMPLOYEE SLIPS ON ICE IN YOUR PARKING LOT AND IS INJURED, SOME FORM OF LITIGATION
IS LIKELY TO FOLLOW. THE QUESTION BECOMES WHO WOULD RATHER BE SUBJECTED TO TORT LIABILITY
OR HAVE THAT LITIGATION COUCHED IN TERMS OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION CAUSE OF ACTION.
IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION THE LEVEL OF AN EMPLOYEE'S INJURIES IS DETERMINED ON A FIXED
SCHEDULE OF PERMANENT DISABILITY TO SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE BODY. IN KEEPING
ANY POTENTIAL RECOVERY IN TERMS OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND NOT TORT LIABILITY IS NOT
WITHOUT BENEFIT TO THE INJURED WORKER. UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW THE WORKER
US DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR EMPLOYER. THIS NO FAULT SYSTEM
WITH A SMALLER SCALE DISCOVERY PRACTICE PROVIDES FOR A MORE STREAMLINED RECOVERY FOR THE
INJURED PARTY. THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY PROVISION OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACT IS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE. THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WAS
DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN THE BALANCE OF SACRIFICE ES BETWEEN MAJOR EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE IN
THE SUBSTITUTION OF NO FAULT LIABILITY FOR TORT LIABILITY. THE SUPREME COURT
IN DUDLY VERSUS VICTOR LEAN LINES INC., SPLANLED THAT BY ACCEPTING THE BENEFITS OF THE
ACT THE EMPLOYER ASSUMES ABSOLUTE LIABILITY, BUT GAINS IMMUNITY FROM COMMON LAWSUIT EVEN
IF HE WAS NEGLIGENT AND THE MROEP FOREGOES THE RIGHT TO SUE HIS EMPLOYER FOR NEGLIGENCE
GAINS AND SPEEDY AN CERTAIN MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR ALL WORK-CONNECTED INJURIES.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE FROM THE ONSET OF THIS CLAIM THE MATTER WAS ADMITTED AS A
COMPENSABLE INCIDENT BY THE EMPLOYER. UNFORTUNATELY THE EMPLOYER'S ACCEPTANCE OF
THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE INJURED WORKER'S ATTORNEY. IN FACT, COUNSEL INSTRUCTED THE
EMPLOYER NOT TO MAKE ANY PAMTHS AN THAT THE PETITIONER REJECTED THE COMPENSATION
BENEFITS. AGAIN, THE TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA DETERMINED THE INJURIES IN THIS MATTER
AROSE FROM A MIN NUT INCIDENT AND WERE COMPENSABLE IN NATURE HOWEVER THEY WERE
PRECLUDED FROM PAYING MEDICAL OR TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS AS COUNSEL WOULD NOT
ACCEPT SAME WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PUT FORWARD A CIVIL LIABILITY LAWSUIT AGAINST THIS PUBLIC
ENTITY. IN THE HERSH DECISION, THE COURT SET FORTH THE CONSISTENT MEASURE
OF ANALYSISING XENS SABLT IN PREMISES RULE CASES HAS BEEN AND STILL REMAINS THE TEST
FIRST DISCUSSED IN THE LIVINGSTONE CASE AN UTILIZED IN THE KRISTIANSEN AN MOST RECENTLY
ARTICULATED IN THE HERSH CASE. WHILE LIVINGSTONE AND KRISTIANSEN AS WELL AS THE CASE
BEFORE THE COURT TODAY, IT APPEARS THAT THE TESTS WERE MET IN HER SHALL THE TEST WAS NOT
MET RESULTING IN A CONTRARY FINDING BY THIS COURT. WITH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT
FACTUAL NUANCES AND OUTSIDE FACTORS IN THE LONG LIN YAN OF CASES INVOLVING WHAT WAS FIRST
THE GOING AND COMING RULE AND LATER THE PREMISES RULE THE TEST REMINDS US THE PIVOTAL
QUESTIONS UNDER THE PREMISES RULE WAS WHERE THE SITE TUESDAY OF THE ACCIDENT AND DID THE
EMPLOYER HAVE CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED AND IN THIS CASE
THIS TEST WAS MET. THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR DECADES HAS ENFORCED THE
CAREFUL, CRAFTED TWO-FACTOR TEST WHEN DECIDING XENS SABLT IN PREMISES RULE CASES. THE
FACTORS BEING THE SITE TUESDAY, LOCATION OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE LEVEL OF CONTROL THE
EMPLOYER HAD OVER THE LOCATION. MOST RECENTLY IN THE HERSH CASE THIS VERY
COURT MADE IT CLEAR OUR TEST WITH THIS WELL ESTABLISHED TANDEM OF FACTORS REMAIN
CONTROLLING. THE APPELLATE DIVISION HERE HAS CREATED A THIRD FACTOR TO THE COURT'S TEST
BEING AN EMPLOYER'S EXCLUSIVE USE OF ITS PARKING LOT AS A DERIVATIVE -- I'M SORRY, AS A
DECISIVE FACTOR IN DETERMINING XENS ABILITY. IF ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
THIS MODIFICATION OF THE TEST, IT WILL AMOUNT TO NO LESS THAN EXACTLY WHAT THIS COURT
HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY TO STAEF OFF, UNWANTED EXPANSION OF THE FACTORS IN ANALYZING A
PREMISES RULE CASE. IN ANALYZING A SCENARIO LIKE OURS INVOLVING A LOT OWNED
AND MAINTAIN PD BY THE EMPLOYER AT THE MOMENT OF AN ACCIDENT INVOLVING AN EMPLOYEE AND
A CO-EMPLOYEE OCCUPYING THE LOT WHILE IN THE NORMAL EGRESS BY DIRECT EVACUATION OF THE
ORDER OF THE EMPLOYER IS CLEAR THIS DEMONSTRATES CONTROL OF BOTH THE PERSON AND THE PREMISES
AND MUST RESULT IN A FINDING OF XENS SABLT UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT. AND FOR
THE REASONS I HAVE SET FORTH TODAY AND PURSUANT TO NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT,
IT IS SMEKT FLEE REQUESTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION TO BE REVERSED
AND THE DECISION OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION JUDGE, MICHAEL J LOOUFR BE UPHELD.
THE COURT: ANY QUESTIONS? ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO AMPLIFY.
JOHN R. TORT, JR.: NO, YOUR HONOR. DRIS WHEN SHE WAS STRUCK WITH A SNOWPLOW THAT WAS OPD
BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA AS SHE WAS AUK WALK WITH HER HUSBAND IN A COMMON
AREA MULTIUSE PARK LOTS AFTER HER SHIFT HAD EN ISSED AND WELL FAR AWAY JOUTS SIDER THE
LIBRARY WHICH IS HER WORKPLACE FRP THE TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA IS NOW A TERPTING TO USE THE
PREMISES RULE AS A SHIELD TO THE ESCAPE SHIRD PARTY LIABILITY. THEIR ARMG OF DIANE STATUS
AS AS BLANG KS HER WHEREVER SHE GOES AND WOULD APPLY WHENEVER SHE'S INJURED ON PREMISES
OENDZ AND PAIN TAND BY HER EMPLOYER, THEY WOULD HAVE YOU ACCEPT AN ARGUE MANY THAT THE
SAME FACT PATTERN AROSE BUT DIANE WALKED ACROSS TO THE BASEBALL SFEELD FEERLTSD FOOTBALL
FIELD T SHARE THE SAME PARKING LOT WITHIN THAT MUNICIPAL WORKING LOTS STRUCK ANY BASE
WALL ORBIT 10 BN A DOG HER INJURIES WOULD BE COMPETENCE ABLG, THAT SEEMS I WILL LITTLE,
THIS CASE IS THE NO THE KRISTIANSEN CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYEE WAS INJURED ON THE BRIDGE
SURFACE WHERE SHE WORK, DIANE WAS A LIBRARIAN THEY WOSH IN THE PARK, SHE DIDN'T WORK IN THE
PARKING LOLTS, SHE HAD NO DUTIES NTS PARK LOT. ADDITIONALLY IN KRISTIANSEN, THE EMPLOYEE
WAS EX SPOEFRD AN ADDITIONAL HAZARD THE ONLY WAY FOR HIM TO GET ON OR OFF THE BRIDGE
WAS TO CROSS A 4 LANE HIGHWAY AT 11:15 AT NIGHT WITHOUT A CROSSWALK AND MUMENT ABL WITNESSES
CONFIRMING THAT IT WAS VERY DARK AND NOT WELL LIT. DIANE DID NOT FACE ANY OF THOSE RISKS.
SHE WAS WALKING IN A COMMON AREA PARKING LOTS LIKE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COULD AND
WOULD. INSTEAD, THIS CASE IS MUCH MORE SIMILAR TO THE HERSH CASE BECAUSE JUST LIKE HERB'S
ROUTE THE LOT COULD BE UTILIZED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC BLIG AND HER ROUTE DID DID
NOT EXPOSE HER TO ANY ADDITIONAL OR ADDED HAZARD THAT A NORMAL MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC NOT
AN EMPLOYEE WOULD ACE FACE IN FACT HER HUSBAND WAS STRUCK BY THE VERY SAME SNOWPLOW.
THAT FACT IN AND OF ITSELF THAT RISK OCCASIONED BY DIANE WAS NOT UNIQUE TO EMPLOYEES.
THIS COURT SHOULD UPHELD THE 81 NAN MUSS DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
BECAUSE OF OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE ALONE ARE SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE COMPETENCE ABILITY.
THE FLOODGATES OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COULD OPEN. THAT'S AT ODDS
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE IN10 THE 1979 ANLD MENT THE IN10 BOWING TO COST CONTAIN OF THE MENT
MEASURES TO NEW JERSEY'S EMPLOYERS FROM UNJUST SFIED WORKERS' COMPENSATION COSTS WHICH
WERE AT THAT TIME AMONGST THE HIGH OF THE IN THE NATION. HAS IN HERSH, THIS COURT INSTRUCTED
THAT THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT DOES NOT INVITE EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATIONS THAT WOULD
RESURRECT THE GOING AND COMING RULE WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT PETITIONERS ARE ARGUE.
USING THEIR DEFINITION, OF OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE AND, ANY TIME A PUBLIC
EMPLOYEE IS INJURED ON PUBLIC EMPLOYER OWNED LAND, THAT INJURY WOULD BE COMPENSABLE
WITHOUT ANY NEXUS TO MROINLT WHATSOEVER. THIS COULD SEARCH AS WORK AROUND TO THE TORT
CLAIMS ACT BECAUSE THE TORT CLAIMS ACT WOULD NORMALLY BAR CERTAIN CLAIMS AS THERE'S
INMUNICIPAL NTS AND OTHER PROHIBITIONS, CLAIMS THAT WOULD BE BAR BY THAT ACT WOULD NOW
BECOME VIABLE UNDER THE WORKERS, UNDER THE GUISE AVENUE WSHG KERS XEN SAS ACT. PARAGRAPH
WE'RE ASKING THIS DORTS HARMONIZE THE GOALS OF WORKERS' COMP. AND LOICH SHUN COST CONTAIN
IN PUBLIC ENTITIES. THE LEGISLATURE CLEARLY DEEMENTD WRIT APPROPRIATE TO LIMIT WORKERS
' COMPENSATIONS TO CONFINED MANAGEABLE AREAS BY ENACTING LTS PREMISES RULES IN ORDER TO
CALCULATE AND EMPLOYER EXPOSURE OF THE THERE MUST BE A REASONABLE LINE WHERE WOK KERS
COMPENSATION ENDS. THEREFORE, WE'RE ASKING FTS REASONABLE LINE BE TIED TO CONTROL WHICH
IS IN LINE WITH THE STATUTE AND THE LOIF TIFF IN10, TO HAVE SOME REASONABLE BASIS FOR
PUBLIC ENTITIES TO ANTICIPATE COSTS. SO THE ELEMENTS OF CONTROL AS MENTIONED IN PRIOR
CASE LAW COULD BE PRAP THE EMPLOYER DIRECTS THE EMPLOYEE WHERE TO PARK OR THEIR ROUTE
EX SPOETSZ THE EMPLOYEES TO ADDITIONAL HAZARDS THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT FACE.
IF THIS COURT AB SEPS PETITIONER'S ARMG WORKERS XEN SAEGS CLAIMS AGAINST
PUBLIC ENTITIES MAIN KROES DRAMATICALLY, PAFSHGING THE WAY SFOR MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
INJURED ON HER COMMUTE HOME BUT STILL ON EMPLOYER OWNED LAND TO SUCCEED IN A BOSHG KERS
XEN SAEGS CLAIM EFFECTIVELY RESUSCITATING THE GOING AND KOMG RULE WHICH HAS COME AND DOWN.
JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: COUNSEL DO YOU AGREE YOUR ARGUMENT AND THE APPELLATE
DIVISION APPARENTLY AGREED THAT ADDING THE DIMENSION OF REQUIRING CONTROL OR DIRECTION
BY THE EMPLOYER TELLING THE EMPLOYEE T USE A PARTICULAR LOT, A MUST BE CLEE OWNED LOT
IS NECESSARY HERE? THAT THAT CONTROL PIECE HAS ONLY APPEARED IN OUR CASE LAW WHEN IT WAS
DEALING WITH PARKING AREAS THAT WERE NOT OWNED BY PUBLIC ENTITIES, BECAUSE I CAN'T FIND
ANOTHER CASE THAT USED THAT PIECE THAT WAS ADDED HERE OUTSIDE OF THAT SETTING.
CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: THIS PUBLIC EMPLOYERS, IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO FOLLOW THAT SAME LOGIC
BECAUSE THEY OWNED SUCH BROAD EXPANSIONS OF LANSD RS FRENS THE TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA OWNS
99 MILES OF ROADWAY. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: HAVE WE EVER SAID THAT THE EMPLOYER
DIRECTING THE EMPLOYEE TO USE A PARTICULAR PUBLIC LOT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE CONTROL PIECE
ON PREMISES ANALYSIS? THE CONTROL PIECE HAS ONLY EVER ARISEN WHEN AN EMPLOYER DIRECTED
AN EMPLOYEE TO USE AS M HERSH A PRIVATELY OWNED PARKING THAT WAS BEING MADE AVAILABLE
TO EMPLOYEES. CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: NO, THE CLOSEST CASE IS THE
KRISTIANSEN CASE BUT THE COURT NEVER NEITHERED TO GET TO THAT ELEMENT OF CONTROL BECAUSE
HE WAS INJURED IN HIS WORK SPACE WHICH WAS THE BRIDGE. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA:
SO YOU AGREE THAT THIS NEW PIECE THAT'S BEING ADDED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION IS NOWHERE
IN OUR CASE LAW? IN THIS SETTING. CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: NOWHERE IN THE
SETTING AS APPLIED TO PUBLIC EMPLOYERS BUT THE ELEMENT OF CONTROL IS NOT NEW. VEK VK
BUT IT'S A P. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: HAD A SPECIFIC KIND OF CONTROL THAT'S
BEING USED HERE, AND LETS ME MAKE MY POINT MORE CLEAR, YOU'RE K LOOG FOR US TO ADD A
DIRECTION AT THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE TELLS ITS EMPLOYEES WHERE TO PARK IN A PUBLIC LOT OWNED
BY AT MUNICIPAL NALT IN ORDER FO WORKERS' COMP. TO COVER, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US
TO HOLD? CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: THIS WOULD APPLY FO A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTS
LIKE IN LAPSLEY HERE, IT WAS A MULTS TEE USE PARK LOTS. IF THIS WERE A LIBRARY PARKING
LOTS I THINK IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE, CLUE CIVILIAN YOUS BY THE
LIBRARY. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: THIS IS ADJACENT PUBLIC PARKING LOT TO THIS
BUILDING. HOW MUCH CLOSER NEED IT BE? CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: TWU A MOUN
PULL COMPLEX WITH PARKING LOTS. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: I UNDERSTAND BUT THE
SEA ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC BUILDING, IS IT NOT. CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: THERE WAS
A SIDEWALK THAT SEPARATE, YOU DON'T STB OUT IMMEDIATELY AND HIT THE, YOU DON'T STP OUT OF
THE LIBRARY. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: GRANTED BUT DO YOU AGREE IT WAS ADJACENT
TO THE BUILDING. CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: I AGREE THAT FWAU MULTS TEE USE
PARKING LOT, THAT THE NEEDLE FIELDS WERE A JAY SKWEN TO IT AS WELL. RAB LETS ANY TALK
ABOUT THIS IN PRACTICAL TERMS BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND YOUR EMPHASIS ON THE WORD
MULTIUSE. ISN'T IT IN PARTICULAR THE EQUIVALENT OF A EMPLOYEE PARKING LOTS IN AN EMPLOYER
PROVIDED WOIL AT THE SAME TIME ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL USES? IT'S OWNED, IT'S
CONTROLLED, IT'S OENDZ AND MAINTAINED, ADJACENT, IT'S FREE, DOESN'T THIS SEEM I AM IN PRAK
CAN YOU TERMS THE QUITE FRANKLY LENGTHS OF AN EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT. CHRISTINE
M. MCCARTHY: NOT, AETS A PARKING LOT. AETS NECESSARILY EMPLOYEE, THERE'S IN DIRECTION
THAT THE EMPLOYEES PARK THERE IN THIS CASE SHE WASN'T EVEN WALKING TO HER OWN VEHICLE,
SHE WAS WALKING TO HER HUSBAND'S VEHICLE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE AND THIS NOT HOW WE, WE'LL ANL THIS THIS IS UNDER THE LAW BUT FROM AND A PER
SPEKT OF AN EMPLOYEE WHERE ELSEWHERE THEY PARK? CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY:
IN ANY ONE OF THOSE THREE LOTHS, THEY COULD PARK ALONG THE STREET, THEY COULD WALK.
JUSTICE ALBIN: THAT DEFIES COMMON SENSE. PEOPLE TRY TO PARK AS CLOSE TO
THE BUILDING WHERE THEY WORK AS POSSIBLE. I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE,
I WAS IN AN OFFICE BUILDING AND PEOPLE WOULD CIRCLE FOR 15 MENTS TO GET 10 FEETS CLOSER
TO THE BUILDING RATHER THAN TO WALK 15 EXTRA FEET. THAT TELLS ME SOMETHING ABOUT HUMAN
NATURE. DO YOU THINK THAT'S A COMMON SENSE THING THAT PEOPLE TRY TO PARK AS CLOSE TO
THEIR BUILDING OF EMPLOYMENT AS POSSIBLE? CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: I DO THINK
THAT IS COMMON SENSE, BUT THERE'S NO DIRECTION HERE FOR THE EMPLOYEE TO --
JUSTICE ALBIN: DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A DIRECTION, IT'S A ADJACENT PASH K LOTS AND THEREFORE
THE EMPLOYER WOULD KNOW ITS EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO BE LIKELY PARKING THERE AS CLOSE TO THE
BUILDING AS POSSIBLE. CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: I THINK THE FACTS CHANGE,
IF THIS IS AN EXCLUSIVE PARKING LOT THAT'S JUST FOR THE LIBRARY. THEN I THINK THAT CHANGES
BUT WHEN IT'S IN A COMPLEX, BECAUSE HOW WOULD YOU DLIN TDELINEATE. JUSTICE ALBIN:
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, THETS' SAY THE LIBRARY HAS 10 EMPLOYEES AND THE PARKING LOT ADJACENT
ALLOWS FOR 50 PARKING SPOTS, ACCOUNTING FOR 40 CUSTOMERS. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? CHRIS
KRES WELL BECAUSE THEN OWNER SHI AND MAINTENANCE COULD EXTEND FOR THE ENTIRE, EVERYTHING
THAT'S PARTS SPARTA TOWNSHIP OWNS -- JUSTICE ALBIN: WE'RE DEALING WITH THE
ADJACENT PARKING LOT, NOT WITH THE BALL FIELD WHERE SHE COULD HAVE BEEN HIT WITH A WHISTLE
BALL OR BASEBALL OR SOME STRAY DOG, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THAT FAR IN THIS CASE, DO WE WHERE.
CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: IT IS THE SAME PARKING LOTS. JUSTICE
SOLOMON: CAN I JUST PICK UP ON SOMETHING YOUR ADVERSARY MENTIONED. IN MANY MUNICIPALITIES,
I THINK JUSTICE ALBIN TUFD ON IT, PARTICULARLY SMALL MUNICIPALITIES, THERE ARE MUNICIPAL
BUILDINGS WITH MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS THAT ACT AS PUBLIC PARKING LOTS FOR THE TOWN, THERE'S
SHOPPING IN TOWN, THERE ARE LIBRARIES IN TOWN AND PEOPLE WILL PARK IN MUNICIPAL PARKING
LOT BUT WALK TO OTHER TOWN ACTIVITIES. WOULD YOUR CONTENTION APPLY TO THE
MUNICIPAL CLERK HAD WALKS OUTS ONE DAY AND TRIPS AND FALLS IN THE PARKING LOTS? WOULD
YOUR RULE APPLY TO THEM? CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: IT WOULD, WELL IT WOULD
BE HIGHLY DEPEN DEN ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: THE FACTS
ARE THEY WALK IN THE PARKING LOTS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PLOW TRUCK HITS
THEM AS THEY'RE WALKING FROM THE BUILDING TO THEIR SPOT WHERE THEY PARKED IN THE LOT.
CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: IF IT'S A MULTIUSE PARKING LOT -- JUSTICE
SOLOMON: A PUBLIC PARKING LOT. CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: YES SO IT WOULD BE
THE SAME CONTENTION AND THE TORT CLAIMS ACT THERE PICKS UP SO IT'S NOT AS IF SOMEONE WOULD BE
WITHOUT A REMEDY. JUSTICE SOLOMON: THEY MIGHT HAVE A PERSON UNTIL INJURY
ACTION AS YOU'RE SEEKING TO BRING HERE, BUT I'M SUGGESTING IN THE CASE THAT I THINK THEY WERE
REFERRING TO, WHERE THE MUNICIPALITY BUILD AS LOT FOR PUBLIC PARKING TO SERVICE THE EMPLOYEES
OF THEIR VARIOUS MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS IN THAT AREA, BUT ALSO THE PUBLIC DOES PARK THERE,
ADJACENT TO THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, THAT PERSON WOULD BE A EN TIGHTSED TO RECOVER AGAINST
THE MUNICIPALITY? CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: IF THERE WERE SOME SORTS OF
PRESCRIPTION, IF THERE WAS A SIGNED SPOTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. JUSTICE
SOLOMON: MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT AS JUSTICE ALBIN SEDZ YOU HAVE DEN OR 15 MINIMUMS IN THE
MUNICIPAL LOT AND HAS A HUNDRED SPOTS. CHRIS KR THE ISSUE IS THERE'S NO LINE IF, IT BECOME
AS COMPENSABLE INJURY WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT EMPLOYEE WALK, YOU KNOW, 10 FEETS DOWN THE
SIDEWALK TO GO INTO ANOTHER STORE, NO LONGER KEKTSED TO THEIR WORK, AS PARTS OF THEIR
COMMUTE HOME BUT WANTED TO STOP ON THE WAY HOME, JUST USING OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE
ALONE IN THIS CONTEXT DOESN'T, IT IS CREATES TOO MUCH LIEBLTS, TOO MUCH STRESS UPON
MUNICIPALITIES. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: WHEN YOU SAID EARLIER IS THE SAME
PARKING LOTS IN RESPONSE TO JUSTICE ALBIN'S PARKING LOT, HOW MANY PARKING LOTS ARE THERE.
CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: THREE PARKING LOTS ARE ALL WITHIN THE COMPLEX.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: HYPOTHETICAL THAT YOU AND HE DISCUSSED RELAETSED TO THEED
02 PARKING LOTS, NOT THE ADJACENT ONE, SF IT IS A ISN'T IT A DIFFERENT PARKING LOT.
CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: NOT A JI AEN AT THE LIBRARY, KIND OF IN BETWEEN THE
BALL FIELD AND THE LIBRARY, THERE'S A ROADWAY, A PATHWAY IN BETWEEN THE LIBRARY BEFORE
YOU GET TO WHERE THE LINED SPOTS ARE. JUSTICE ALBIN: SDD, I'M SORRY.
CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: SO HAD SHE PARKED IN, SHE COULD HAVE PARK, SHE DIDN'T
PARK ANYWHERE, PUT HAD ANY EMPLOYEE PARKED IN ANY OF 3 LOTS, IT'S STILL A TOWNSHIP LOT.
JUSTICE ALBIN: WHAT ARE WE TO MAY HAVE BEEN OUR LANGUAGE IN LIVINGSTONE
WHICH CONCEDEDLY A DIFFERENT CASE, BUT WHERE WE SEND YOU HEAR THE QUOTATION FROM YOUR
ADVERSARY, WE'RE PER SWATSED THAT THE LEGISLATURE APPLY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THAT CASE
AND CASES CITED IN THE OPINION RGS LOTS OENDZ MAIN TANDZ BY EMPLOYERS FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING
ARE PART OF THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES. THAT'S WHAT WE SAID. WHAT DO YOU THINK WE MEANT?
CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: WHAT MAKES IT DIFFERENT ESPECIALLY WITH A PRIVATE
EMPLOYEE AND WHAT WAS EMPHASIZED IN LIVINGSTONE THAT BY RIERG THE EMPLOYEES TO PARK FURTHER
AWAY IT RESERVED SPOTS FOR KUFTS MERS. GIVING THOEM AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE. HERE TOWNS
AREN'T IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY. JUSTICE ALBIN: LIVINGSTONE WAS AN EXPANSION
OF WHAT I JUST LADY TO YOU. BECAUSE A AND S DID NOT OWN THE PARKING LOT. ALL THEY DID
WAS SELL THEIR PEOPLE TO PARK FURTHER DOWN AND THAT IS WHAT WRE MEN BY CONTROL. CONTROL
THE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE WE TOLD THEM WHERE TO PARK EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T ON THEIR PREMISES.
BUT THE PIECE THAT I QUOTED TO YOU IS SAYING THAT PARTS OF YOUR WORKPLACE IS A PARKING
LOT. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAYS. AM I MISTAKEN? CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: NO,
YOU'RE CORRECT BUT TUR THEY ARE ON ROSE SEN TRAVEL AND SER RON NO, SIR V APPLE COULDN'T
TANNER, THE COURT ALSO SAID THAT THE LIVINGSTONE IS NOT TO BE OVERREAD AND NOT TO BE,
REINVEG RATE. JUSTICE ALBIN: IT'S NOT OVERAED BECAUSE A AND S DIDN'T MAINTAIN
OR OWN THE PARK LOT. WE DIDN'T WANT TO EXPAND THAT. THAT'S REASON WHY IN HERSH WE WOUND
PUTTING LIMITS. BUT HERE THE PARKING LOT IS OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE TOWNSHIP. AND
THE EMPLOYEE WAS STRUCK 18 FEET OUT THE DOOR. CHRIS KRS SHE WAUKDZ DOWN A SIDEWALK AND
IN 18 FEET INTO THE PARKING LOT. IT WASN'T IMMEDIATELY AS IF SHE STEPPED RIGHT OUT BRIBE
BRAER AND STRUCK BY THE SNOWPLOW SHE HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF WHEN HER WORK DAY
ENDED AND IN LIVINGSTONE, AS WITH A PRIVATE ENTITY, THE COURT ALSO SAID THIT MACKS SENSE
TO PASS ALONG THOSE COSTS TO A BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY CAN INCORPORATES THAT ATS DAUFT OF
DOING BUSINESS. HERE, FOR A PUBLIC EMPLOYER, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO PASS ALONG DAUFTS
TO -- JUSTICE ALBIN: CAN I MAKE ONE OBSERVATION. YOU SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE
REPRESENTING THE TOWNSHIP. YOU'RE MAKING A BETTER CASE FOR SAVINGS FOR MUNICIPALITIES
THAN I'VE HEARD FROM THE MUNICIPALITY. YES? CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: I UNDERSTAND
THAT, IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING POSITION FOR US TO TAKE. PATS PAT IT CUTS BOTH WAY BECAUSE
THERE'S A THIRD PARTY AKSZ JUND WAY AND THE TOWNSHIP IS MAKING ARGUMENTS THAT THE
ULTIMATE BURDEN OF A THIRD PART ACTION WOULD CIRCUMVENT THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.
CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: BUT THE TORT CLAIMS ACT ALREADY EXISTS TO PROTECT
MUNICIPALITY, THE LEGISLATURE ALREADY WROTE IN, YOU KNOW, LAWS THAT PROTECT AS IN THE
EARLIER ARGUMENT THEY WERE EMPHASIZING THAT IMMUNITY IS THE RULE. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: BUT THE COURT CLAIMS ACT DOESN'T IN ANY WAY NEGATE THE LEGISLATIVE IN10 OF THE
WORKERS XN SAGS COMPENSATION AK. CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: IT FILLS IN, WHERE
IT SENDS K IT CAN FILL IN FOR A SITUATION LIKE THIS TO PROTECT AS THE WORKERS XEN SAEGS
ACT THE PURPOSE OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT TO PROVIDE MEN MULL COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES
PURPOSE OF COURT CLAIMS ACT TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ENTITIES. JUSTICE
FERNANDEZ-VINA: AND PROVIDE MUCH LARGER COMING OUT OF THE TOWNS KAUFR THROUGH THE
ININSURANCE CARRIER. KRITS ACCURATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE MADE HOLE WHERE WORKERS XEN
SAEGS DOES NOT DO THAT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: CAN YOU ADDRESS THE
STATEMENT OF BLACK LETTER LAW IN KRISTIANSEN WHICH WE ALREADY HEARD FROM YOUR COLLEAGUESES
ACROSS THE RILE OWN, MAIN TAENS OR HAS EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY, WHY IS THAT NOT
MET HERE? CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: THE THE FWP OF SPARTA IS HER EMPLOYER,
SHE WORK AS A LIBRARIAN SO THE LIBRARY, HER EMPLOYER DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE
PROPERTY. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: BU THIS PASSAGE THAT I JUST READ TO YOU
A STACHLT OUR LAW, USES THE DISJUNCTIVE. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE EX CLOU CIVILIAN USE.
CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: KRISTIANSEN ALSO DOESN'T NOSE AP MRI TO THIS CASE BECAUSE
HE WAS INJURED ON THE BRIDGE SURFACE WHERE HE WORK. DIANE AND EVEN LIKEN THE COURT GOES
ON IN KRISTIANSEN TO LIKEN IT IS TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO PUNCHING OUT ON THEIR TIME CLOCK AND
INJURE AS THEY'RE WALK K THROUGH THE NT MRA ON THE WAY TO THE CAR. CHIEF
JUSTICE RABNER: ARE YOU ARGUE WITH THE STATEMENT OF LAW OR ARE SOMETHING ELSE? ARE YOU
SAYING THIS IS AN INCORRECT STATEMENT OF LAW? CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY: I'M
NOT SAYING IT'S AN INCORRECT STATEMENT OF LAW, I'M SAYING IT'S NOT APPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE
THE KRISTIANSEN STATEMENT OF LAW WAS CLEARLY DOLING WAS EVEN AT THE END OF THE CASE THE
SAYS THEY DO NOT NEED TO ADDRESS CONTROL OF THE PARKING LOT. CHIEF JUSTICE
RABNER: ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR PRESENTATION. CHRIS KRS NO THAT
CONCLUDES MY ARGUE P. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON. DID YOU WEREN'T TO YOU I HAVE REBUTTAL.
WILLIAM G. JOHNSON: THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE FROM THIS COURT WHERE YOU
ANALYZED THE ISSUE OF CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER, I'M SORRY OF THE EMPLOYEE IN THEIR USE
OF PROPERTY THAT WAS NOT OWNED BY THE EMPLOYER. SO THAT'S WHAT THE APPELLATE DIVISION
WRONGLY DID HERE. IS THEY DID NOT FILE, FOLLOW YOUR PRECEDENTS, THEY DECIDED THAT BECAUSE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, MROIRGS OWN VAST EXPANSES OF PROPERTY AND BECAUSE WE'RE WORRIED THAT
IF WE RULE THIS WAY, SOMEBODY WHO IS KILLED IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT THREE MILES AWAY
FROM AREA OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO PURSUE WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM BENEFITS,
THAT'S NOT THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, THE FACTS IN THIS CASE IS THAT SHE LEFT HER WORKPLACE,
WALK ACROSS A SIDEWALK, WALKED INTO A PARKING LOT, THE ROAD WAS IS AN INTERIOR ROAD WAS
WITHIN THE PARKING LOT WHERE CARS DRIVE TO GET TO THEIR PLACES, IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL ROADWAY,
AND THEN WAS STRUCK. THAT'S THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES. SO QUITE SIMPLY, THIS NOT UNLOIK
ANY OTHER PARKING LOT CASE THAT YOU'VE ANALYZED OVER THE COURSE OF, SINCE THE BEGINNING
OF THE WORKERS XEN SAEGS ACT, IT'S NO DIFFERENCE AND THE SAME STANDARD SHOULD APPLY,
WE OWN THE LOT, SHE WAS THERE AT THE WORK PREMISES BECAUSE SHE HAD JUST FINISHED HER WORK
DAY, THEREFORE SHE'S EN TEELTSED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM BENEFITS AND WE'RE
ENTITLED TO ASSERT THE BARGAINS PURSUING A TORT CLAIM AGAINST US. CHIEF JUSTICE
RABNER: THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO OUR COUNSEL FOR HELPFUL ARGUMENTS.