Exclusive Remedy Knocks Out Mass. Worker’s Claims

Case File

A Massachusetts worker had punched out and was heading to his car to leave for the day when a coworker plowed into him in an employer-owned vehicle. The exclusive remedy provisions of Massachusetts law kept him from bringing a negligence claim even though he was off the clock. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the court's decision.

Case

Meehan v. Lazer Spot, Inc., No. 23-P-180 (Mass. App. Ct. 09/11/24).

What Happened

A worker brought a negligence claim against his employer and a coworker alleging that the coworker struck him while operating a vehicle owned by the employer. According to the worker, after his shift ended one day and while he was walking to his car, the coworker struck him the company truck. The impact threw the worker in the air and caused him "a variety of injuries."

The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment, and the worker appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

Rule of Law

Massachusetts's Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for claims brought by an injured employee against an employer. Unless an employee expressly preserves his common law rights of action, a claim alleging negligence of an employer or of a coemployee foreclosed by the exclusivity provisions.

Massachusetts courts have extended compensability to injuries arising while an employee was arriving to or departing from work on a passage to which the employer had a right of use, such as a stairwell, elevator, parking lot, or outdoor passageway.

Workers' Comp 101: In Mannering's Case, 195 N.E. 757 (Mass. 1935), the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that an employee is within the scope of her employment while making her exit from the employer's premises after the end of her period of work, "either on land of the employer or by stairs over which [s]he has a right of passage."

What the Court Said

Because the worker received a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, the exclusivity provisions of Massachusetts's workers' compensation law foreclosed the worker's negligence action, and thus the appeals court affirmed the trial court's decision.

The court rejected the worker's argument that he was not injured in the course of his employment because, at the time of the accident, he had concluded his employment activity and thus was not acting in furtherance of the employer's business.

The court found "little difficulty" in concluding that the worker's injuries arose in the course of his employment because:

(1) He had just "punched out," proceed to walk toward his car in the employee parking lot to go home.

(2) He was departing from work on a passage to which the employer had a right of use.

(3) There was a causal relation between his employment and the injuries he suffered.

(4) The risk of injury was a hazard to which his employment exposed him.

(5) His act of walking across the premises to his designated parking area was incidental to his employment.

The Takeaway

Just because a worker is no longer on the clock doesn't mean he's not at work for purposes of determining whether an injury arose out of employment.

Share This Article: