Opinion
CASE NO. 120-CRD-5-82
MAY 23, 1983
The Claimant-Appellant was represented by Edward T. Dodd, Jr., Esq.
The Respondents-Appellees were represented by Richard Stabnick, Esq.
This Petition for Review from the January 5, 1982 Decision of the Commissioner for the Fifth District was argued on November 19, 1982 before a Compensation Review Division Panel consisting of Commissioners John Arcudi, Andrew Denuzze and Robin Waller.
FINDING AND AWARD
1-2. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Commissioner's Finding and Award are made paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Division's Finding.
3. The ISELI Company parking lot is on the west side of Greystone Road across the street from the plant.
4. Paragraph 4 of the Commissioner's Finding and Award, as corrected, is made paragraph 4 of this Division's Finding.
5. The June 21, 1979 accidental injury to the Claimant not occur on the employment premises and is not an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment.
It is therefore ORDERED, DECREED, AWARDED AND ADJUDGED that Claimant's claim be dismissed.
OPINION
Claimant-Appellant on June 21, 1979 was scheduled to work the 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shift at the Respondents' Terryville establishment on Greystone Road. He was delayed and phoned the plant that he would be late. At about 4:30 p.m. that day he was operating his motorcycle southbound on Greystone Road. The plant is on the east side of Greystone Road and the employees' parking lot is across the street on the west side of the road. Claimant overshot the parking lot entrance by about 200 feet but then executed a U-turn to retrace his path. Before he could enter the lot his motorcycle skidded on a sandy patch on Greystone Road. It skidded about 180 feet off the road and into the parking lot crashing against another vehicle parked in the lot. Claimant suffered injuries in the crash.
Appellant's claim that those injuries arose out of and in the course of the employment was dismissed by the Commissioner below. Claimant argues before us that although the motorcycle's skid started on the public road, it ended in the parking lot and the injuries actually occurred in the parking lot premises of the employer. He cites McNamara v. Hamden, 176 Conn. 547 (1979). The rule there enunciated at pages 550-551 of the decision makes compensable an injury occurring (a) within the period of employment (b) at a place where the employee might reasonably be and (c) while the employee is reasonably fulfilling the duties of the employment or something incidental to it, Tusman v. Spiegel Zemicnik, Inc. 38 Conn. Sup. 607 (1982).
We do not think Claimant has satisfied the McNamara rule. A Compensable injury not resulting from occupational disease or repetitive trauma must "be definitely located as to the time when and the place where the accident occurred." We agree that an employer parking lot maintained for the convenience of employer and employee is an extension of the employment premises, Hughes v. American Brass Co., 141 Conn. 231 (1954). But the accident here occurred on the public roadway not the employer's parking lot. Part (b) of the McNamara rule relates to the employee's being on the employment premises or on a reasonable extension thereof. We do not believe in this instance that the public roadway adjacent to the parking lot constituted a reasonable extension of the employment premises.
Section 31-275(8), C.G.S.
Appellant in further support of his argument has cited Professor Larson's treatise, LARSON, Workmen's Compensation Law and the various sections of that work which discuss the positional risks exceptions to the "going and coming" rule. McNamara, supra, reviewed Connecticut "going and coming" cases, True v. Longchamps, Inc., 171 Conn. 476 (1976); Dombach v. Olkon Corporation, 163 Conn. 216 (1972); McKiernan v. New Haven, 151 Conn. 496 (1964) and Taylor v. M. A. Gammino Construction Co., 127 Conn. 528 (1941). If the Claimant had already parked his car and was then in, lured while crossing the public road to get to the plant, then his injury would probably constitute an exception to the rule. However, we do not find any Connecticut precedent which would justify us in extending a positional risk exception to this particular set of circumstances.
We have made several changes in the Commissioner's Finding, but they do not affect the result he reached. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.