 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Hawai11/6/1995
t nor leased any portion of it; (2) the DLIR did not assign parking to its employees; (3) the DLIR neither paid for its employees' parking nor deducted the monthly parking charge for Hale Kaheka parking from its employees' pay; and (4) the lot was not exclusively used by the DLIR's employees, inasmuch as other tenants and non-tenants utilized the parking area. Without more, we conclude that the language of the lease and presence of the option in the lease in the present case does not confer any appreciable control over the Hale Kaheka parking lot to the DLIR. Therefore, we hold that the Hale Kaheka parking lot does not constitute part of the DLIR's "premises" for purposes of application of the premises rule and the principle of passage between two parts of the employer's premises. Accordingly, Smith's injury suffered in a public street while en route from the DLIR's offices in the Kaheka Professional Center to the parking lot in Hale Kaheka did not arise out of and in the course of her employment with the DLIR, and her injury is therefore not compensable under the provisions of HRS chapter 386.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the ICA in the present case is reversed, and an order depublishing the ICA's opinion in the present case will be filed concurrently with this opinion.
Ronald T.Y. Moon
Robert G. Klein
Steven H. Levinson
Paula A. Nakayana
Mario R. Ramil
|