{"id":33214,"date":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","date_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/uncategorized\/going-to-work-held-compensable.html"},"modified":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","modified_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","slug":"going-to-work-held-compensable","status":"publish","type":"corporate","link":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/human-resources\/going-to-work-held-compensable.html","title":{"rendered":"Going to Work Held Compensable"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n | Last reviewed\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

In interpreting the "premises rule" enacted by the New Jersey Legislature in 1989 as theoretically replacing the "going and coming rule", the Court concluded that the accident occurred in an employment area under the control of the employer. The Supreme Court determined that the employment situation exists when the employee reaches an area under the control of the employer, even if that area extends into a common portion of the property used by multiple tenants of the building.<\/p>

In establishing the element of control, the Court relied upon the facts that the elevator was used in order to transport fabric and clothing between the ground floor and the fourth floor and that some of the employees had used the elevator for ingress and egress.<\/p>

The use of the common area for business purposes brought that area of the building within the employer's theoretical control and was considered to be the employer's premises under the Workers' Compensation Act. Ramos v. M & F Fashions, (N.J. 1998).<\/i><\/p><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In interpreting the “premises rule” enacted by the New Jersey Legislature in 1989 as theoretically replacing the “going and coming rule”, the Court concluded that the accident occurred in an employment area under the control of the employer. The …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":true,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"corporate_categories":[6487,6486],"class_list":["post-33214","corporate","type-corporate","status-publish","hentry","corporate_categories-human-resources__employment-laws","corporate_categories-human-resources"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate\/33214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/corporate"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"corporate_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate_categories?post=33214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}