Home
Practice Alerts

312-425-3131

10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60603

211 Landmark Drive, Suite C2, Normal, IL 61761

1015 Locust Street, Suite 914, St. Louis, MO 63101

FacebookLinkedin

Parking Lot Falls - Recent Appellate Court Decision Raises Questions About Employer-Provided Parking Areas

February 2023

Ivan Nieves

A recent Illinois Appellate Court Decision may change what is considered an employer “provided” parking area for purposes of compensability for an employee who sustains an injury in a parking area. In the recent case, Western Springs Police Department v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 2023 IL App (1st) 211574WC (“Western Springs”), the Illinois Appellate Court held that an employee who fell on ice and snow in a parking area owned by the municipality, but available for use by the general public, could still recover workers’ compensation benefits despite the fact that there was no greater risk to the employee than the general public.

Current Precedent

When an employee slips and falls while walking to work at a point off the employer’s premises, the resulting injuries are not compensable under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. This is known as the “general premises rule.” However, there are two exceptions to the general premise rule. The first exception known as the “parking lot exception,” permits recovery for an injured employee where the employee is injured in a parking lot provided by, and under the control of the employer, and the injury is caused by some hazardous condition. (See BCM Law April 2019 Practice Alert article, Stormy Weather For Parking Lot Falls).

The second exception is when the employee is injured at a place where the employee is required to be in the performance of the employee’s duties and the employee is exposed to a risk common to the general public to a greater degree than other persons.

The Parking Lot Exception – Is This Parking Area Employer Provided?

In Western Springs, the claimant was a crossing guard for the Village of Western Springs. Her crossing guard duties required her to be at an intersection near the village hall. According to the claimant, she drove to work in the morning, parked her vehicle in a train commuter angled parking space across from the village hall and as she stepped out of the car, she stepped onto a thin layer of snow that was icy underneath, slipped and fell, fracturing her wrist. Although she was on her way to her crossing guard job, she was not close enough to be considered working. The claimant admitted that there were two employee-designated parking lots behind the village hall that were not for use by the general public. She stated that, when she arrived for work, she did not check to see if parking spaces were available in either employee lot before parking her vehicle in one of the angled parking spaces. The angled parking spaces were not reserved for Village employees but were for commuter train parking, limited to 4 hours in duration, and available for use by the general public. The claimant admitted that she could park anywhere she wanted and that no one from the Village told her where to park. She testified that she chose to park in one of the angled parking spaces because it was more convenient and closer to the corner where she worked as a crossing guard. Claimant testified that the Village granted her (and several other Village employees) the privilege of parking in the angled parking spaces in excess of the 4-hour parking limitation applicable to members of the general public. She stated that she was required to give the Village her license plate number so that the police officers would know that it was her car and not issue a citation for parking in excess of the 4-hour parking limitation. The Village Manager testified that the angled parking spaces along the railroad tracks, including the parking space where the claimant fell, were a public parking area which the Village of Western Springs owned, maintained and plowed.

At the arbitration level, the Arbitrator found that the claimant did not sustain an accident that arose out of and in the course of her employment and denied her workers’ compensation benefits since the employee parked on a public street, in a space open to the general public, and not designated for parking by Village employees, and she fell at a point well away from her crossing guard post.

On review, the Commission reversed the Arbitrator’s decision (with one commissioner dissenting), finding that the claimant did sustain an accident that arose out of and in the course of her employment with the Village, since the Village owned the parking premises where the accident occurred, exercised control or dominion of the area, and although there was no evidence that the Village required claimant to park there, the Village did confer different parking rules so that Village employees could use that parking space.

The Village sought a judicial review of the Commission’s decision in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The Circuit Court entered an order holding that the Commission’s decision was erroneous as a matter of law and reversed the Commission’s decision. The Circuit Court agreed with the analysis of the dissenting commissioner, finding that the claimant’s accident did not involve a fall in a parking lot provided by the Village for use by its employees and that her accident did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.

On appeal to the Appellate Court, claimant argued that the unrebutted evidence established that she “fell on ice in the employer provided parking while starting her job as a crossing guard” and that she was injured on premises owned by the Village of Western Springs within a reasonable time before assuming her duties as a crossing guard. The Village argued that the evidence established that the claimant’s “injury did not occur in a parking lot provided by [the Village], but rather occurred on a public street.”

The Appellate Court agreed with the claimant and held that she was on the Village’s premises at the time of injury when she fell in the parking space. How was she on the Village premises for purpose of employment? The Appellate Court clarified when the Village granted the employee, and other employees, the privilege of parking in the parking area in excess of the 4-hour limitation that was applicable to the general public, the parking area became a parking area “provided” by the Village. Hence, because the parking area was provided by the Village, the employee was now on the Village premises for purpose of employment. Once the employee was on the premises of the Village the “parking lot exception” applied, and the hazard of slipping on the snow and ice made this a compensable case.

The Appellate Court, however, did elaborate that a municipal employer’s “premises” for purposes of determining the compensability of an injury to one of its employees incurred while traveling to work would not include all streets and sidewalks throughout the municipality and “we reject such an expansive definition of the term ‘premises’ in the context of a workers’ compensation claim against a municipality. We believe that a municipal employer’s ‘premise’ in the context of a workers’ compensation claim includes only a place where the injured employee reasonably might be in the performance of his or her duties and any place incident thereto, including employer provided parking areas. It does not include all property owned by the municipality regardless of its connection to the performance of an injured employee’s duties. We read the Commission’s decision as being based simply on a finding that the parking space where the claimant fell was an employer provided parking area because the Village granted the claimant and other employees the privilege of parking in the spaces in excess of the 4-hour limitation applicable to the general public.”

While the general premises rule may seem clear cut, this may not always be the case and “parking lot injury” claims are very fact specific as demonstrated in Western Springs. While the Western Springs case involved a municipal employee and municipal property, could the same facts in Western Springs be extended to other companies and corporations that “provide” parking areas to its employees—or more specifically, special parking exceptions offered to its employees but not the general public? There can be many facets in determining if a parking area is the general premises of a company or corporation for purpose of employment and a thorough initial investigation should always be performed to determine who owns and maintains the parking area and what level of control does the employer exhibit regarding where their employees park. The attorneys of BCM Law are well experienced in litigating parking lot cases and are available to assist you with defending your parking lot claims.

  • Chicago Bar Association
  • Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association
  • DRI
  • The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
  • Illinois Self-Insurers' Association
  • Chicago Bar Association
  • Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association
  • DRI
  • The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
  • Illinois Self-Insurers' Association
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-425-3131
211 Landmark Drive, Suite C2
Normal, IL 61761
Phone: 309-862-4914
1015 Locust Street, Suite 914
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: 314-300-0527
Back to Top