Western Springs Police Dept. v. Illinois Workers’ Comp. Comm’n., 2023 IL App (1st) 211574WC
Facts
Claimant was employed by the Village of Western Springs Police Department (the Village) as a crossing guard and as a receptionist doing general office work. On February 6, 2014, claimant’s crossing guard duties required her to be at the corner of Wolf Road and Hillgrove Avenue in the Village of Western Springs from 7:40 a.m. until 8:10 a.m. She drove to work that morning and, at approximately 7:30 a.m., parked her vehicle in an angled parking space directly across Hillgrove Avenue from the village hall. She stepped out of her vehicle, slipped on ice hidden by a thin layer of snow, lost her balance, fell, and injured her wrist. The claimant was taken by ambulance to LaGrange Memorial Hospital where it was determined that she had fractured her wrist.
There are two employee-designated parking lots behind the village hall that are not for use by the general public. Claimant did not check to see if parking space was available in either employee lot before parking her vehicle in one of the angled parking spaces across Hillgrove Avenue from the village hall. Claimant admitted that she could park anywhere she wanted and no one from the Village told her where to park. She chose to park in one of the angled parking spaces because it was more convenient.
The angled parking space in which claimant parked was not reserved for Village employees. The space was for commuter train parking, limited to 4 hours in duration, and available for use by the general public. Claimant testified that the Village granted her and other Village employees the privilege of parking in the angled parking spaces in excess of the 4-hour parking limitation applicable to members of general public. She was required to give the Village her license plate number so that police officers would know that it was her car and not issue a citation for parking in excess of the 4-hour parking limitation.
The arbitrator found that the claimant did not sustain an accident that arose out of and in the course of her employment and denied her benefits under the Act. The arbitrator found the claimant parked her vehicle on a public street in a space open to the general public and not designed for parking by Village employees, and she fell at a point well away from her crossing guard post. According to the arbitrator, claimant was exposed to a neutral risk that was not greater than that to which the general public is exposed.
The Commission reviewed the arbitrator’s decision and issued a decision with one commissioner dissenting. The Commission found that claimant sustained an accident that arose out of and in the course of her employment with the Village on February 6, 2014. The Commission reasoned that claimant “fell in a parking space provided by her employer [the Village].” Although the parking spaces were open to the general public, the Village allowed her to park there, waived the 4-hour parking limit for her and other Village employees, and therefore exercised control or dominion over the area, despite no evidence that the Village required the claimant to park there. The Commission concluded that the claimant’s injury was caused by a hazardous condition on the Village’s premises and was, therefore, compensable under the Act.
The Village sought a judicial review of the Commission’s decision in the circuit court of Cook County. On November 18, 2021, the circuit court entered an order holding that the Commission’s decision was erroneous as a matter of law and reversing the Commission’s decision. The circuit court agreed with the dissenting commissioner, finding that the claimant’s accident did not involve a fall in a parking lot provided by the Village for use by its employees and that her accident did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.
Appellate Court Holding and Analysis
The sole issue on appeal was whether the Commission’s finding that the claimant’s accident and resulting injury arose out of and in the course of her employment with the Village is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The appellate court began by discussing the “parking lot exception” to the “general premises rule,” where slip and fall injuries while walking to work at a point off the employer’s premises do not arise out of and in the course of her employment. Under the “parking lot exception” (see Mores-Harvey v. Indus. Comm’n., 345 Ill. App. 3d 1034, 1038 (2004)), recovery has been permitted where an employee is injured in a parking lot provided by and under the control of the employer.
The Commission applied the parking lot exception in this case, concluding that claimant’s accident and resulting injury arose out of and in the course of her employment with the Village. The dissenting commissioner, however, found that the claimant fell on a public street where the parking lot exception is not applicable. The dissent further argued the Commission’s finding regarding the Village’s “premises” rested on an overly expansive definition of the term which, for purposes of determining the compensability of an injury, would include all streets and sidewalks throughout the municipality.
The appellate court rejected such an expansive definition of the term “premises” in the context of a workers’ compensation claim against a municipality. A municipal employer’s “premises” in the context of a workers’ compensation claim includes only a place where the injured employee reasonably might be in the performance of his or her duties and any place incidental thereto, including employer-provided parking areas. It does not include all property owned by the municipality regardless of its connection to the performance of an injured employee’s duties.
The appellate court read the Commission’s decision as being based simply on a finding that the parking space where the claimant fell was an employer-provided parking area because the Village granted the claimant and other employees the privilege of parking in the spaces beyond the 4-hour limitation applicable to the general public. Based upon this privilege, the appellate court concluded that the Commission’s finding that the claimant fell in an employer-provided parking space was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The appellate court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and thereby affirmed the Commission’s decision awarding benefits to the claimant pursuant to the Act.
Takeaway
The parking lot exception to the general premises rule applies where the injured employee reasonably might be in the performance of his or her duties and any place incident thereto, including employer-provided parking areas. The Commission’s definition of an “employer-provided” parking area expands the definition beyond the typical designated parking lot or employee-designated spaces in parking lots available to the general public. If, as in this case, the employer provides additional privileges or benefits to its employees related to parking (e.g., extending the time allowed to park in a certain space or area), that will elevate the general public parking area into an “employer-provided” parking area.
