• Clarification of the Premises Rule in the Context of Injuries Occurring During Ingress and Egress from Work
  • July 13, 2015 | Author: Dario J. Badalamenti
  • Law Firm: Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C. - Roseland Office
  • Burke v. Investors Bank, Docket No. A-1551-13T1, 2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 552 (App. Div., decided March 16, 2015)

    The petitioner parked her car in the parking garage of the office building in which she worked for the respondent, one of five tenants in the multi-story. While in the lobby, she tripped and fell into an elevator, injuring her knee.

    The petitioner filed a claim with the Division of Workers’ Compensation seeking medical and indemnity benefits. The parties consented to a bifurcated trial as to the issue of compensability and application of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36—i.e., the so-called “premises rule.”

    In affirming the Judge’s ruling, the Appellate Division relied on Hersh v. County of Morris, 217 N.J. 236 (2014). In Hersh, the petitioner was injured after she parked her car in an employer-provided parking garage and was struck by a car as she attempted to cross a public street to get to her office. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner’s claim was not compensable.