The Ingress/Egress Rule and the Recent Bonner-Hill v. Southland Waste Systems Case

The general rule is that an injury that occurs when an employee is traveling to or from work is not compensable because the injury does not arise out of or in the course of employment. Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Stevens, 278 Ga. App. 166, 598 S.E.2d 166 (2004). However, the ingress/egress rule is a well established exception, which deems compensable an injury that occurs during a reasonable period of ingress or egress on the employer’s premises. Peoples v. Emory University, 206 Ga. App. 213, 424 S.E.2d 874 (1993). The ingress/egress rule is predicated, in part, on the idea that the employee has not departed from the premises if he or she has not started traveling a route of his choosing wholly disconnected with his employment. Hill v. Omni Hotel at CNN Center, 268 Ga.App. 144, 147 (601 S.E. 2d 472) (2004).

Georgia case law on the topic has defined many situations involving the ingress/egress rule. Courts have held that an employee who is traveling to and from the employer’s premises in transportation furnished solely by the employee and over a route chosen solely by the employee, is not in the course of his employment and an accident occurring during such time is not a compensable one. Similarly, an employee’s injury occurring in a portion of a large building open to the public and housing numerous business and eateries en route to her employer in a different location of the building did not arise out of or in the course of her employment and was not compensable. This is because the employer did not have ownership or control, nor did it maintain the areas where these Claimant’s were injured. See Longuepee v. Ga. Institute of Technology, 269 Ga. App. 884, 885 (605 SE2d 455) (2004); Hill vs. Omni Hotel at CNN Center, 268 Ga. App. 144, 147 (601 SE2d 472) (2004);

However, an employee who is injured while entering or leaving the building where the employer is located may have a compensable claim. Consider that an injury that occurs while an employee is going to or from a parking facility owned, controlled, or maintained by the employer can also be found compensable. The fact that the employer leased the parking lot is immaterial. The key issue is ownership, control, and maintenance of the area of injury and whether it can be construed as being a part of the employer’s premises. For example, an injury between two employees leaving work for the day in the employer’s parking lot has been deemed compensable because it occurred on the employer’s premises. See Harrison v. Winn Dixie Stores, 247 Ga. App. 6, 8 (542 SE2d 142) (2000); DeHowitt v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 99 Ga. App. 147, 148 (8) (108 SE2d 280) (1959); Labelle v. Lister, 192 Ga. App. 464 (385 SE2d 118) (1989).

Georgia courts have held that a leasehold interests in certain portions of a building rendered non-exclusive access routes the “premises” for purposes of the ingress/egress rule. Similarly, claims have been found compensable when an injury occurred on a private road owned by the employer that was traversed by the public, because the private road constituted “premises” and the rule was applicable, even though the employee had not officially reported for daily duty but was en route to do so. See Knight-Rider Newspaper Sales, Inc., 176 Ga. App. 174, 175 (335 SE2d 458 (1985). See Longuepee, 269 Ga. App. at 885; Peoples, 206 Ga. App. at 215.

In Bonner-Hill vs. Southland Waste System, Inc., the Court of Appeals of Georgia issued a decision on November 18, 2014 regarding an employee who was driving to work along State Route 247. The employee turned right off Route 247 onto an entrance roadway, or access road, to his employer’s premises. That entrance road also went over railroad tracks, and the employer’s lease specifically stated that the premises “shall include access to the property… over [the] entrance road.” Unfortunately, while on the entrance road, the employee’s vehicle was struck by a northbound train, resulting in the employee’s death. His wife subsequently filed for workers’ compensation benefits.

The Court of Appeals found the claim compensable and based their decision upon a finding that the short entrance road was the only route by which the employee could access his workplace. Additionally, the employer also had control over the entrance road as it effectively served as an entrance for ingress and egress of employees and visitors to the employer’s premises, as contemplated by the lease. Consequently, since the employee was on his way to work, and was on the entrance road when he was struck by the train, the ingress/egress rule applied, and his accident was deemed to be arising out of and in the course of his employment.

                                  By Ashik R. Jahan, Esq.