Mundy v. Dep't of Health & Human Res. - 593 So. 2d 346 (La. 1992)

Rule:

The determination of whether an accident arises out of employment focuses on the character or source of the risk which gives rise to the injury and on the relationship of the risk to the nature of the employment. An accident arises out of employment if the risk from which the injury resulted was greater for the employee than for a person not engaged in the employment. Moreover, an accident has also been held to arise out of employment if the conditions or obligations of the employment caused the employee in the course of employment to be at the place of the accident at the time the accident occurred. Thus, when the employee is squarely within the course of his employment, virtually any risk (whether an increased risk or not) has been considered as arising out of employment.

Facts:

Plaintiff Jenera Mundy filed a tort action against her employer, The Department of Health and Human Resources, to recover damages for injuries sustained when she was stabbed by an unknown assailant in an elevator at her employer's hospital while en route to report for the evening shift at her work station. She had pressed the emergency button on the elevator panel, hoping that the alarm would scare off the assailant or attract assistance. However, the button was not in working order, and the alarm did not sound. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and found that La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1032 did not restrict her to workers' compensation benefits as her exclusive remedy against her employer because she had not come under the control or supervision of the employer at the time when the incident occurred. The court of appeal reversed holding that both elements of time and place were present, and that the plaintiff's injury arose out of her employment because the necessities of her employer's business required her to be at the place of the incident at the time it occurred. The plaintiff appealed.

Issue:

Did the plaintiff’s injury arise out of her employment? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court noted that the determination of whether an accident arose out of employment focused on the character or source of the risk which gave rise to the injury and on the relationship of the risk to the nature of the employment. An accident arose out of employment if the risk from which the injury resulted was greater for the employee than for a person not engaged in the employment. Moreover, an accident has also been held to arise out of employment if the conditions or obligations of the employment caused the employee in the course of employment to be at the place of the accident at the time the accident occurred. In this case, the “arising out of employment” inquiry revealed that the risk which gave rise to the injury was not greater for plaintiff than for a person not so employed. Moreover, while the conditions of the employment arguably caused plaintiff to be at the place of the attack at the time the attack occurred, there were other alternative routes for her to reach her work station. As to the "course of employment" inquiry, plaintiff was attacked before she arrived at her work station and before she began her employment duties. Although she had entered the building in which her work station was located, she was in the public area of the building open to the public, on an elevator used by patients and visitors as well as employees. She had never performed employment duties on the first or second floor, or on the elevator between those floors, and was not doing so at the time of the assault. Thus, the Court reversed and held that, under the facts of the case, the employer failed to carry its burden of proving its entitlement to tort immunity.