eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – February 2024 – Virginia

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

United Cont’l Holdings, Inc. v. Sullivan
Court of Appeals of Virginia
No. 0164-23-4, 2024 Va. App. LEXIS 32

Decided: January 23, 2024

Under the extended premises doctrine, an employee’s injuries occurred in the course of her employment where the injuries occurred on a walkway that was an essential means of ingress and egress from the airport terminal, and the employee’s presence on the walkway was required and reasonably expected by virtue of her employment within the terminal.

Background

The Claimant worked as customer service representative for an airline. Most employees parked in a lot also used by airport customers and the public, but they were not required to do so by the Employer. To access the airport terminal from this lot, employees could walk along a covered walkway extending from the garage’s third level, or they could leave from the garage’s first floor exit and cross a street to enter the airport. Employees of the Employer usually used the third level because they would clock into employment on the third level of the airport. The walkway was connected to the termination by a silver threshold. Beyond the threshold, employees would walk on a direct path 80 feet away from the threshold before turning right and ending 30 feet before the Employer’s terminal entrance. The walkway was maintained and controlled by the Airport, not the Employer. After crossing the threshold, the Claimant slipped and fell on water while in the third-floor walkway. The Employer denied the claim asserting that the walkway was not the sole means of ingress and egress to the Claimant’s place of employment, the Employer did not control or maintain the parking garage or walkway, and the Claimant was not required to park there. The deputy Commissioner agreed, further finding that the area where the Claimant fell was not sufficiently near the entrance to the Employer’s terminal so that the area was an extension of the Employer’s premises. The Claimant appealed, and the Commission reversed, applying the extended premises doctrine, finding that the location of accident was in such proximity and relation to the spaced leased by the Employer as to be in practical effect, the Employer’s premises.

Holding

The Court of Appeals, agreed, reasoning that once the Claimant crossed over the silver threshold from Garage 2 onto the walkway that lead directly and exclusively to the Employer’s terminal, she effectively entered the Employer’s workplace under the extended premises doctrine. The extended premises doctrine applied as (1) the location of the injury was an essential means of ingress and egress, and (2) the Claimant’s presence on the walkway was a required and reasonably expected virtue of her employment within the Employer.

Takeaway

The extended premises doctrine does not primarily turn on proximity or reasonable distance, but on the character of the passageway upon which the Claimant fell.

Any questions regarding this legislation can be addressed to Jamie L. DeSisto, Esquire at (443) 641-0558 or jdesisto@tthlaw.com.