Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

David Viley v. Scholastic, Inc.

Decision date: April 16, 201419 pages

Summary

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission reversed the administrative law judge's denial of workers' compensation benefits, finding that the employee's injury to his right knee sustained from a fall on a snow and ice-covered parking lot arose out of and in the course of his employment under the extension of premises doctrine. The Commission awarded the employee $26,384.56 for past medical benefits, $2,139.20 for temporary total disability benefits, and $7,334.40 for permanent partial disability benefits.

Archive Notice

This archive contains published Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission workers' compensation decisions reproduced for research convenience. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Practical guidance for this decision

Third-Party Injury Check

This workers' comp decision may point to a separate injury claim.

  • A driver, contractor, property owner, or equipment company may share fault.
  • The injury involved a vehicle, unsafe premises, defective equipment, or a non-employer vendor.
  • A serious injury or death may need both benefits review and civil-claim analysis.

Caption

FINAL AWARD ALLOWING COMPENSATION

(Reversing Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)

Injury No.: 10-050708

Employee: David Viley

Employer: Scholastic, Inc.

Insurer: Ace American Insurance Company

Additional Party: Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund

This workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by $\S 287.480 RSMo. { }^{1}$ We have read the briefs, reviewed the evidence, heard the parties' arguments, and considered the whole record. ${ }^{2} Pursuant to \S 286.090$ RSMo, we issue this final award and decision reversing the May 2, 2013, award and decision of the administrative law judge.

Preliminaries

Employee injured his right knee when he fell on a snow and ice-covered parking lot while walking to his car from employer's building after his work shift. Employee claims he is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Employee asserts his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment in that the extension of premises doctrine applies in this case and he has proven his injury is deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment under § 287.020.3(2) RSMo. Employer/insurer argues that the extension of premises doctrine does not apply in this matter. Further, employer/insurer argues that we cannot deem employee's injury to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, because employee was equally exposed to the hazard giving rise to his injury outside of and unrelated to his employment.

The administrative law judge concluded, as follows:

The claimant, David Viley, has failed to sustain his burden of proof that the injury he sustained arose out of and in the course of employment. Mr. Viley failed to prove that it does not come from a hazard or risk to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to his employment in normal nonemployment life. The evidence reflects that the parking lot conditions when Mr. Viley fell were similar to those generally in the area in which he conducted his daily affairs with the exception of his own property which was maintained to a higher standard.

The parties stipulated that if we find the claim compensable, we should enter an award in favor of employee and against employer/insurer in the following amounts: $\ 26,384.56 for past medical benefits; $\ 2,139.20 for temporary total disability benefits, and, $\ 7,334.40 for permanent partial disability benefits.

[^0]

[^0]: ${ }^{1}$ Statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri 2009, unless otherwise indicated.

${ }^{2}$ Chairman Larsen was not a member of the Commission at the time the oral arguments were heard.

Findings of Fact

Employer leased a portion of a building from Randolph Properties Development, LLC (landlord). The building was located in a commercial complex located at 1800 Robertson Road in Moberly, Missouri. Employee worked for employer in its call center offices located in the leased portion of the building.

We recite relevant portions of the lease below:

Section 2.02 Use of Common Facilities

The use by Tenant of the Leased Premises shall include the use, in common with others entitled thereto, of the "Common Facilities" (as defined in Section 11.01).

Section 10.01 Control by Landlord

Notwithstanding anything set out in this Lease to the contrary, it is agreed that (i) all Common Facilities shall be subject to the exclusive control and management of Landlord, and Landlord shall have the right at any time (either before, during or after the initial construction thereof), once or more often, to change the size, area, level, location and arrangement of the entrances, access roads, parking areas and other Common Facilities, to construct buildings and other improvements thereon and therein and to permit the owners or occupants of land located outside the Commercial Complex and their invitees to use the Common Facilities; (ii) Landlord shall have the right to make alterations and additions to the Commercial Complex (including the construction of additional buildings therein) but Landlord agrees to minimize any disruption to Tenant's business, and to add and exclude areas from the Commercial Complex, and to relocate improvements, and the premises leased to any other tenant; and (iii) Landlord shall have the right to do and perform such other acts in and to the Common Facilities as Landlord shall determine to be advisable with a view to the improvement of the convenience and use thereof by tenants of the Commercial Complex and their invitees; such work shall be performed in such a way as to minimize any disruption to Tenant's business and so as not to unnecessarily or materially impede Tenant ingress or egress to said Commercial Complex or customer parking.

Section 11.01 Common Facilities

a. The term "Common Facilities" shall mean all areas, space, equipment and special services in or serving the Commercial Complex, provided for the common or joint use and benefit of Landlord, the occupants of the Commercial Complex and their employees, agents, servants, customers and other invitees, as determined by Landlord from time to time. Landlord shall be responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the Common Facilities.

b. Landlord agrees to provide security checks twice nightly, Monday through Saturday, on the parking lot and exterior of the Commercial

Employee: David Viley

- 3 -

Complex to discourage loitering between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.

Section 13.03 Rules and Regulations

c. Tenant and Tenant's officers, concessionaires, agents, employees, contractors, vendors, suppliers and other invitees of Tenant shall park their automobiles and other vehicles ("Tenant's Automobiles") only in those portions of the parking area designated for that purpose by Landlord from time to time. Tenant shall have the exclusive use for parking of Tenant's Automobiles in the existing parking lot to the west of the Main Building and the new parking lot described in Exhibit C hereto; provided, however, if Tenant ever terminates this Lease as to Suite D as provided herein for any Option Period, then, during such Option Period and any future Option Period, Tenant and Tenant's Automobiles shall be excluded from an appropriate prorata number of parking spaces in said parking lots in area(s) as selected by Landlord in Landlord's reasonable discretion.

We will refer to the "existing parking lot to the west of the Main Building" as the "south lot." We will refer to the "new parking lot described in Exhibit C" as the "north lot."

Based upon the terms of the lease, we make the following findings. The lease granted employer exclusive parking use of the north and south lots. "Exclusive," means "excluding or having power to exclude (as by preventing entrance or debarring from possession, participation, or use)...limiting or limited to possession, control, or use (as by a single individual or organization or by a special group or class)."3 "Use," means "the act or practice of using something." We find that by the lease the landlord granted to employer the power to exclude all non-employees from using (i.e., parking vehicles in) the north and south lots, including the landlord, other tenants of the complex, and visitors to the complex.

Employees of the landlord, employees of other tenants, and visitors to the complex sometimes parked in the north and south lots. This was regularly true for other workers in the complex because the only restroom in the entire complex was in the building that housed employer's leased offices. Workers from other businesses in the complex would frequently drive from their workplaces and park in the south lot when they visited the sole restroom. Individuals working for landlord or other complex occupants, as well as, visitors to the complex often drove through the north lot to get to other locations in the complex.

Because the landlord granted exclusive parking use of the north and south lots to employer, we find that the lots were not for the "common or joint use and benefit of" the landlord, other tenants, and invitees. Consequently, we find the south lot does not fall within the lease definition of "Common Facilities." Our finding is consistent with the understanding of

[^0]

[^0]: ${ }^{3} WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 793 (2002).

{ }^{4}$ WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 2523 (2002).

employer's operations manager who testified that employer had the power to direct uninvited vehicles to leave the parking lot and had, in fact, exercised that power.

Through the lease, landlord agreed to perform some responsibilities in relation to the north and south lots such as repairs, resurfacing, striping, and snow removal. These maintenance responsibilities were similar to landlord's lease obligations as regards the outside of the building that housed employer's leased offices. A February 25, 2010, email from employer's facilities manager to the landlord's vice president reveals that shortly after employee's accident, employer's facilities manager contacted the landlord to express displeasure that the lots had not been cleared of snow and ice. The e-mail indicates that the vice president agreed that the landlord would modify the way the lots were cleared in response to employer's displeasure.

A fence enclosed the real property upon which the commercial complex sits. There were three gates providing access to the complex from Robertson Road. One gate considered the "main gate" - was on a driveway/roadway which ran east and west between the south lot and the north lot. ${ }^{5}$ Employee always entered the complex by heading east through the main gate on the driveway.

Several of employer's supervisory and management employees had a key to the lock on the main gate. Employer's operations manager was typically the first person to arrive for work at the commercial complex each day. The main gate was usually locked when the operations manager arrived so he used the gate key assigned to him to unlock the gate. The gate remained open and unlocked throughout the workday. Employer's call center employees were generally the last workers to leave the commercial complex at night. A call center supervisor would lock the main gate upon leaving the complex with a key assigned to the supervisor for that purpose unless one of the security guards provided by the landlord was at the gate to do so.

Upon arriving at the main gate to the commercial complex for a work shift employee would:

- enter the commercial complex heading east on the driveway through the main gate at Robertson Road;

- turn south off the driveway and enter the south lot through another gate, which we will refer to as the "south lot gate;"

- park and exit his vehicle;

- walk east across a north-south roadway and then along a sidewalk to the entrance of the building containing employer's leased offices.

Upon entering the building, employee reported to his desk and clocked in through his computer. At the end of his shift, employee clocked out through his computer system. Employee would then exit the building and return to his vehicle along the same route by which he arrived.

When employee arrived for work on February 18, 2010, snow and ice was on the south lot. Employee concluded his work shift on that day at 9:00 p.m. and clocked out through

[^0]

[^0]: ${ }^{5}$ The other two gates provided ingress to and egress from the complex via the north lot.

his computer system. As was his custom, employee left the building, walked west along the sidewalk and across the roadway into the south lot, which was dimly lit. Although the south lot had been plowed or bladed to provide pathways upon which vehicles could travel, snow and ice remained on portions of the lot, including the plowed pathways and the parking spaces. The remaining snow and ice rendered the south lot in an unsafe condition by the time employee left work. Although employee was walking on a plowed portion of the south lot, employee slipped on the snow and ice and fell. Employee sustained a torn later

Full decision text continues in the plain-text archive copy.

Related Decisions

affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits for an employee's left knee injury, including approval for total knee replacement and related medical care. One dissenting member argued the knee replacement did not flow from the work injury and that employer liability should be limited to the successful meniscectomies already performed.

knee5,412 words

The Commission reversed the ALJ's award granting workers' compensation benefits to a certified nursing assistant who injured her left knee while backing out of a narrow space between a bed and wall at a nursing home on March 5, 2015. The ALJ had found the injury work-related and awarded medical expenses, temporary total disability, mileage reimbursement, and permanent partial disability benefits, but the Commission determined this award was erroneous.

knee12,845 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award denying workers' compensation benefits to Jamie E. Overstreet for a knee injury sustained on February 12, 2018. A dissenting opinion argued the injury arose out of employment and that the employee was entitled to temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, and future medical benefits.

knee6,228 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award of workers' compensation benefits for Jackie W. Hooper's work-related knee injuries involving two tears to the medical meniscus. The commission found the award was supported by competent and substantial evidence and in accordance with Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, though one member filed a dissenting opinion regarding the scope of future medical treatment responsibility.

knee5,575 words

Davis v. Negri Plumbing(2020)

January 14, 2020#10-069808

reversed

The Commission reversed the administrative law judge's decision and found the Second Injury Fund (SIF) liable for compensation in this case involving a preexisting condition of osteogenesis imperfecta. The employee sustained a compensable right knee injury on September 1, 2010, and the Commission determined that the preexisting condition constituted a hindrance or obstacle to employment for purposes of SIF liability.

knee10,924 words