Jaeger Baking Co. v. Kretschmann
96 Wis. 2d 590, 1980 Wisc. LEXIS 2606, 292 N.W.2d 622 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Wisconsin's Worker's Compensation Act, the statutory provision extending coverage to employees injured "going between an employer’s designated parking lot and the employer’s work premises" applies exclusively to employees who have utilized the employer's parking lot and are traveling directly to or from it, not merely to any employee injured on the path that such a user would take.
Facts:
- Heinrich Kretschmann was attacked by two unknown persons on a public sidewalk in Milwaukee on January 27, 1974, while walking to work.
- At the time of the attack, Kretschmann was about 50 feet from the employee entrance of the Jaeger Baking Company, where he was scheduled to work the 2 a.m. shift.
- Kretschmann had traveled to work by city bus that morning, alighting at a bus stop before walking towards the bakery.
- The exact location where Kretschmann was attacked was on the direct route an employee would take if traveling from Jaeger Baking Company's designated parking lot to its employee entrance.
- Kretschmann had not used the Jaeger Baking Company's designated parking lot as part of his commute on the day he was injured.
Procedural Posture:
- The Jaeger Baking Company brought an action to review the findings and order of the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR).
- DILHR's order, dated December 3, 1975, had set aside a hearing examiner’s findings and conclusions and awarded worker’s compensation to Heinrich Kretschmann.
- The circuit court for Dane County reversed DILHR’s order and dismissed Kretschmann’s application for compensation.
- Kretschmann appealed the circuit court's decision to the court of appeals (Kretschmann as appellant, Jaeger Baking Company as appellee).
- The court of appeals reversed the circuit court and reinstated DILHR’s order awarding compensation.
- Jaeger Baking Company (employer) petitioned this court (Wisconsin Supreme Court) for review (Jaeger Baking Company as appellant, Kretschmann as appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Wisconsin's worker's compensation statute, covering injuries sustained "going between an employer’s designated parking lot and the employer’s work premises," apply to an employee who was injured on that direct path but did not use the employer's parking lot for their commute?
Opinions:
Majority - Heffernan, J.
No, the statute does not provide coverage to an employee injured on the direct path between an employer’s designated parking lot and work premises if the employee did not use the parking lot. The court found the statutory language "going between an employer's designated parking lot and the employer's work premises" to be unambiguous. It reasoned that the legislative intent, informed by prior judicial decisions (Halama and Frisbie) that prompted the amendment, was to narrowly extend coverage only to employees traveling from the parking lot to the work premises, or vice versa, thereby treating the lot and premises as two connected parts of the employer's property. The court rejected the argument that the statute created a general zone of coverage for any employee merely located on that path, regardless of their mode of transport. It also emphasized that statutory interpretation should not be used to broaden an obvious meaning or introduce subjective "reasonable distance" standards that the legislature did not explicitly create, citing Professor Larson's criticism of such judicial attempts to blur clear lines in worker's compensation law.
Dissenting - Day, J.
Yes, the statute should cover an employee injured on the direct path between an employer’s designated parking lot and work premises, even if they did not use the parking lot, particularly if their route had merged with that specific path. Justice Day argued that worker's compensation statutes, being remedial, should be liberally construed in favor of coverage. The dissent contended that the statute's wording does not explicitly require the employee to have used the parking lot as a starting or ending point, and therefore should be interpreted as creating a protected area for any employee on that direct route. It highlighted the disagreement among the lower courts as evidence that the language is not unambiguous and found the majority's interpretation to create an "absurd result" where two employees, injured at the same place by the same people, would have different outcomes based solely on their mode of transportation. Justice Day asserted that the employer, by establishing the lot, creates the necessity for encountering the hazards on the route between the lot and the workplace.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict constructionist approach to worker's compensation statutes in Wisconsin, particularly regarding the "going to and from work" rule and its exceptions. The court's emphasis on legislative intent and its rejection of a broader "zone of coverage" interpretation means that exceptions to the general rule of non-compensability for off-premises injuries will be narrowly applied. Future cases will likely face a high bar in arguing for expanded worker's compensation coverage beyond the explicit language of the statute, reinforcing the importance of clear legislative drafting and limiting judicial interpretation to the precise scope of statutory amendments.
