Utah High Court Comes Close to Adopting Positional Risk for Unexplained Falls

The Supreme Court of Utah affirmed a finding by the state’s Labor Commission that an employee’s injuries sustained in an unexplained fall in a parking lot adjacent to the employer’s facilities arose out of and in the course of the employment in spite of the fact that the lot was not owned, nor exclusively used, by the employer [Intercontinental Hotels Grp. v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2019 UT 55, 2019 Utah LEXIS 155 (Sept. 4, 2019)]. Utilizing Professor Larson’s “two-part causation test” [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 46.03], the Court found the employee had adequately proven both legal causation and medical causation for claimed condition.

Background

Wilson severely injured her right foot when she fell in the parking lot adjacent to her employer’s office building. As noted above, the lot was neither owned nor exclusively used by the employer, although there were some spaces in the lot that were exclusively designated for the employer. At the time of the fall, the parking lot was free of any obvious tripping hazards, such as ice, cracks, or other defects.

Going and Coming Rule

The workers’ compensation insurer denied the claim, contending that under the going and coming rule, Wilson’s accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. The Labor Commission ultimately affirmed a finding by an ALJ that Wilson had slipped and fallen in the parking area that her employer had directed her to utilize and, as a result thereof, Wilson’s injury was not precluded by the going and coming rule. The employer appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court for review.

Larson Two-Part Causation Test

The Court noted that it had earlier adopted Professor Larson’s two-part causation tests. That is to say, the employer must not only show legal causation, he or she must also show medical causation. In essence, the “arising out of” requirement of the coverage formula requires that the employee establish a causal relationship between the employee’s injury and the employment. An accident is legally caused by employment if it occurs as a natural consequence of the employee’s employment.

The Court reviewed case law regarding unexplained falls and, quoting Larson, § 7.04[1][a], observed that “most courts confronted with the unexplained-fall problem have seen fit to award compensation” in the workers’ compensation context. The Court stressed that while Wilson could just as easily have slipped while walking to the mall or through the park, her particular injury would not have happened where and when it did but for her obligation to appear at the employer’s offices on the morning of her accident.

Definition of “Premises”

As to the “course of employment” requirement, the employer contended Wilson’s injuries were not compensable because she was still in the parking lot at the time of her fall. Her claim, said the employer, was still barred by the going and coming rule because she was off the employer’s premises. Turning again to Larson, § 13.01[1], the Court acknowledged that the realm of the employer’s premises was important to the ruling in the case. Citing Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles, 276 U.S. 154, 48 S.Ct. 221, 72 L.Ed. 507 (1928), the Court stressed that the “premises” was not defined by rigid, specific boundaries; it was more fluid than had been argued by the employer. Premises included areas of “such proximity and relation as to be in practical effect a part of the employer’s premises.” Under Utah case law, parking lots are considered to be part of an employer’s premises if they are used by employees, as a means of ingress and egress into the place of employment, with the express or implied consent of the employer.

Here, the Labor Commission concluded that the parking lot constituted part of the employer’s premises. The Court said that because the evidence on record supported the finding that the parking lot was used by employees, as a means of ingress or egress into their place of employment, with the express or implied consent of their employer, it could not say the Labor Commission’s determination—that the parking lot was in practical effect a part of the employer’s premises—was incorrect under the applicable standard.

Quick Comment

In the instant case, the Supreme Court of Utah provides an excellent overview of the difficulties in handling unexplained falls. As we point out in Larson:

In a pure unexplained-fall case, there is no way in which an award can be justified as a matter of causation theory except by a recognition that this but-for reasoning satisfies the “arising” requirement. In appraising the extent to which courts are willing to accept this general but-for theory, then, it is significant to note that most courts confronted with the unexplained-fall problem have seen fit to award compensation (Larson, § 7.04[1][a]).

The Utah court here is careful not to adopt the positional risk doctrine as such, but the result is still the same as that discussed in Larson. There was no employment-related condition here that was even alleged to have caused the fall. Nor was there any hint that the risk of injury was peculiar to Wilson or in any way idiopathic in its cause. The risk was, at best, neutral. Courts in the majority of jurisdictions, faced with this same dilemma, routinely award compensation.