Sazima v. Shepherd Bar & Restaurant and Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission, holding that the plaintiff's injury while walking from a nonemployer parking location to work did not arise in the course of employment. The majority concluded that no recognized exception to Michigan's coming-and-going rule applied, while the dissent argued that the employer's parking directive conferred a special benefit and created a dual-purpose activity.

Holdings

1. An employee injured on a public street or other property not owned, leased, or maintained by the employer while traveling to or from a nonemployer parking lot is not injured in the course of employment, absent a recognized exception to the coming-and-going rule. Sazima's injury did not qualify because her activity conferred no special benefit on the employer, served no dual purpose, and subjected her to no excessive risk.
2. Fischer v. Lincoln Tool & Die Co. is overruled because it is inconsistent with Simkins.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sazima's injury, sustained while walking from a nonemployer parking space on a public street to work, occurred in the course of her employment under MCL 418.301(3).
2. Whether the circumstances fell within a recognized exception to the coming-and-going rule.
3. Whether Fischer v. Lincoln Tool & Die Co. should be overruled as inconsistent with Simkins v. General Motors Corp. (After Remand).

Disposition

reversed