Safe Ingress and Egress to the Workplace
Prepared by Kirsi L. Poupore, Esq.
Under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act, an employee is only eligible for
workers’ compensation benefits if his or her injuries “arose out of and in the course of
employment.” Minn. Stat. § 176.011(16). An employee must show a connection
between the time, place and circumstances of the injury. 1 Generally, this means that a
compensable injury will occur during work hours and on work premises.2
Although injuries incurred during an employee’s comings and goings to and from work
are generally not compensable, an exception exists for ingress and egress. Employers
are required to provide employees with a reasonable period of ingress and egress to
and from the workplace. The rationale behind this exception is that entering and exiting
the workplace are incidents of employment, and thus should be considered an
extension of the workplace for purposes of coverage. When an injury occurs during
ingress or egress, workers’ compensation protection will apply if the injury occurs:
A.
B.
C.
I.
Before or after the workday;
On the employer’s premises; and
Within the usual course of ingress and egress.3
What time periods constitute “before and after the workday?”
The protection of the Workers’ Compensation Act extends to a reasonable period
beyond actual working hours as long as the employee is engaging in activities
reasonably incidental to employment. There is no set time at which an injury must
occur to be coverable. Minnesota courts have found periods of up to an hour before or
after a shift to be reasonable times for ingress or egress.
1
A.
Birch v. Hance Distrib. & Am. Hardware Ins. Co., 58 W.C.D. 37 (1997).
Employee, a fast food worker, ended his shift and met friends and coworkers in the lobby. After a 30-minute conversation, the employee was
walking to his car and injured his knee stepping off the curb into the
building’s parking lot. The court held that even if the employee engaged in
a personal deviation by stopping to converse for a length of 30 minutes,
coverage resumed when he continued his normal route of leaving the
premises.
B.
Johnson v. Ricci’s of Hugo, slip op. (W.C.C.A. September 15, 2005).
Employee, a bartender, ended her shift, clocked out, but remained onsite
drinking, socializing and playing games.
Workers’ compensation
Swenson v. Zacher, 22 W.C.D. 342, 118 N.W.2d 786, 789 (1962).
See, Voight v. Rettinger Transp., Inc., 33 W.C.D. 625, 630, 306 N.W.2d 133, 136 (Minn. 1981).
3
Starrett v. Pier Foundry, 488 N.W.2d 273, 274 (Minn. 1992).
2
coverage was denied because the employee was no longer engaged in
acts reasonably incident to work; she was acting as a patron and not
entitled to the protection of workers’ compensation laws.
II.
Are employee work breaks coverable as part of the workday?
Work breaks are only coverable under very limited circumstances. The defining
Minnesota case on point is Gibberd v. Control Data Corp., 40 W.C.D. 1040, 424 N.W.2d
776 (Minn. 1988). After performing an exhaustive analysis of prior case law, the court
concluded that an injury occurring during a work break is compensable if:
A.
It occurs at a place that could reasonably be construed to be part of the
employment premises, or
B.
It occurs at a time when the employee, in addition to reasons personal to
himself, i.e. seeking sustenance, was furthering the employer’s interests.
The court, however, was careful in noting, “If, however, the injury (or death) occurred in
a public street and the hazard encountered was no greater than that to which all others
not so employed would be exposed if they chose to traverse the way, it is not
compensable.”
III.
What constitutes “employment premises” with regard to ingress or
egress?
Generally, injuries sustained while commuting to and from work are not compensable. 4
However, once an employee parks a vehicle, the route from the parking lot to and from
the main work premises can constitute an extension of the workplace for purposes of
reasonable ingress and egress.
The location and ownership of employee-used parking lots are both important in
determining coverage. Minnesota courts have determined that compensable injuries
include those:
A.
Sustained while traveling between an employer-owned parking lot and the
main work premises, as the route is incidental to employment.5
B.
Sustained while traveling between a lot used and maintained by employer
(even if maintenance comes through payment of rent) and the main work
premises.6
However, for a parking lot to be considered an employment premises for purposes of
coverage, there must be a sufficient connection between the employer and employee’s
4
See, e.g., Swanson v. Fairway Foods, 439 N.W.2d 722, 41 W.C.D. 1010 (Minn. 1989).
See, Starrett, 488 N.W. 2d at 274.
6
See, Merrill v. J.C. Penney, 30 W.C.D. 278, 256 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. 1977).
5
place of parking. In Maker v. Kelly, the employee parked in a lot 10 to 15 blocks from
her employer and was injured while walking to work. Even though the injury occurred
on a public sidewalk directly outside her office building, she was not entitled to benefits
because “mere proximity” would not satisfy the rule that she be engaged in work-related
activities or in the time-space boundaries of her employment.7
According to Gibberd, compensable premises also include a cafeteria furnished by the
employer; an on-call employee’s location during a work break; and an employerfurnished park where employees were encouraged to lunch.
IV.
Which routes are considered “usual” for ingress and egress?
Employers are required to provide safe routes of entry and exit for their employees,
which is a question of fact.8
Even if a route is deemed safe, two different principles impact a court’s determination of
whether a worker’s injuries will result in entitlement to workers’ compensation.
V.
A.
Improvident Act. An employee’s careless or reckless act during ingress
or egress can preclude workers’ compensation benefits if it results in a
hazard to an otherwise safe and reasonable route. In Elfelt v. Red Owl
Stores, the employee was leaving work for an unpaid break. As he exited,
he jumped up to touch his hand on a rafter, and injured his hand when his
ring caught on a bolt. Benefits were denied, as the employee’s own
actions caused his injury.9
B.
Special Hazards. Workers’ compensation benefits will attach if an
employee is exposed to a hazard which originates on the employment
premise, as part of the working environment, or peculiarly exposes the
employee to an external hazard which subjects the employee to a greater
personal risk than one has when pursuing ordinary personal affairs. 10 For
example, when a teacher was struck by a ball batted from her employer’s
schoolyard, she was awarded benefits.11
Conclusion
Employers are required to provide reasonably safe means of ingress and egress.
Should an injury occur during the period of exiting and entering the workplace, an
employee is entitled to benefits if he or she is on the premises or an extension thereof,
and within a reasonable time of beginning or ending work.
1290952
7
Maker v. Kelly, 66 W.C.D. 239 (2006).
Simonson v. Knight, 5 W.C.D. 114, 219 N.W. 869 (1928).
9
26 W.C.D. 660, 206 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1973).
10
See, Gibberd, 424 N.W.2d at 783.
11
Nelson v. City of St. Paul, 19 W.C.D. 120, 81 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 1957).
8