WPCQ" a!BYT *I0nCODD y8lC <?yF YVLL w mC o/buo]&hrb]uc#ɋC?ɖB,/( B,ȭm4:4TLZ{&4KԼݬ:41%xfxXW]{)Gi;J1"$_~~=b#}x XcLzFKjb*3ygPAg5 =:wl)n0ۭ?>ۙFyݝ#l?7*h4gi1TB}E<667@UMٻP^? @ dOEsȼmІ&E$gOgn3O{D?ká^Q]d!vGdQ3E7Avkbȡm\$H׬Κ!~I*# LU:W % 0Dw@4/>U: 0 7 0D 4U<J:OdzU:=w&U:.U:hU:[U: B AQ@ 0D! 0DJ! 0D!! D/!! B" D3"HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,cAZ"Arial RegularX($X WXdDeefghDijӀtօ#%/J<3|xt  $X   1    u XXMr.Woodsissixfeetseveninchestalland245pounds.,) AZ"Arial Regular(8(3$ !X     0  (#$  0    $X   2    u XXTenn.CodeAnn.506101705(Supp.1997).  $X   2     XXTenn.CodeAnn.506101705(Supp.1997).   $X   4    u XXTheCourtnotedthatotherjurisdictionshavegrantedrecoveryundersimilarfactual  circumstances.#XX u_#Ԁu XXSeeBrancov.LevitonMfg.Co.,518A.2d621(R.I.1986);Baughmanv.EatonCorp.,  62OhioSt.2d62,402N.E.2d1201(1980);Eplerv.NorthAm.RockwellCorp.,482Pa.391,393A.2d  1163(1978);Knoopv.IndustrialCommn,121Ariz.293,589P.2d1325(1978);ProctorSilexCorp.v. j b МDebrick,253Md.477,252A.2d800(1969);StateCompensationIns.Fundv.Walter,143Colo.549, (  354P.2d591(1960);Gaikv.NationalAnilineDiv.AlliedChem.&DyeCorp.,5A.D.2d1039,173   МN.Y.S.2d409(1958);Barnettv.BritlingCafeteriaCo,225Ala.462,143So.813(1932);Smithv.   GreenvilleProds.Co.,185Mich.App.512,462N.W.2d789(1990);OscarMayerFoodsCorp.v.Illinois b Z МIndus.Commn,146Ill.App.3d315,99Ill.Dec.822,496N.E.2d515(1986);WestPointPepperell,Inc.   v.McEntire,150Ga.App.728,258S.E.2d530(1979).   -Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman   $X   3    u XXTheterm premisesincludestheentireareadevotedtotheemploymentbytheemployer,  includingtheparkinglotsprovidedforemployeeuse.SeeLollar,767S.W.2dat150;1Larson,  WorkmensCompensationLaw,15.42(1994).           $X   2     XXTenn.CodeAnnotated506101705(Supp.1997).,cAZ"Arial Regular   $X   4     XXTheCourtnotedthatotherjurisdictionshavegrantedrecoveryundersimilarfactual  circumstances.#XzX _#Ԁ XXzSeeBrancov.LevitonMfg.Co.,518A.2d621(R.I.1986);Baughmanv.EatonCorp.,  62OhioSt.2d62,402N.E.2d1201(1980);Eplerv.NorthAm.RockwellCorp.,482Pa.391,393A.2d xp 1163(1978);Knoopv.IndustrialCommn,121Ariz.293,589P.2d1325(1978);ProctorSilexCorp.v. 6 . МDebrick,253Md.477,252A.2d800(1969);StateCompensationIns.Fundv.Walter,143Colo.549,   354P.2d591(1960);Gaikv.Natl.AnilineDiv.AlliedChem.&DyeCorp.,5A.D.2d1039,173N.Y.S.2d   409(1958);Barnettv.BritlingCafeteriaCo,225Ala.462,143So.813(1932);Smithv.GreenvilleProds. p h Co.,185Mich.App.512,462N.W.2d789(1990);OscarMayerFoodsCorp.v.IllinoisIndus.Commn., . & 146Ill.App.3d315,99Ill.Dec.822,496N.E.2d515(1986);WestPointPepperell,Inc.v.McEntire,150   МGa.App.728,258S.E.2d530(1979).,cAZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular   $X   4     XXTheCourtnotedthatotherjurisdictionshavegrantedrecoveryundersimilarfactual  circumstances.#XzX _#Ԁ XXzSeeBrancov.LevitonMfg.Co.,518A.2d621(R.I.1986);Baughmanv.EatonCorp.,  62OhioSt.2d62,402N.E.2d1201(1980);Eplerv.NorthAm.RockwellCorp.,482Pa.391,393A.2d  1163(1978);Knoopv.IndustrialCommn,121Ariz.293,589P.2d1325(1978);ProctorSilexCorp.v. j b МDebrick,253Md.477,252A.2d800(1969);StateCompensationIns.Fundv.Walter,143Colo.549, (  354P.2d591(1960);Gaikv.NationalAnilineDiv.AlliedChem.&DyeCorp.,5A.D.2d1039,173   МN.Y.S.2d409(1958);Barnettv.BritlingCafeteriaCo,225Ala.462,143So.813(1932);Smithv.   GreenvilleProds.Co.,185Mich.App.512,462N.W.2d789(1990);OscarMayerFoodsCorp.v.Illinois b Z МIndus.Commn,146Ill.App.3d315,99Ill.Dec.822,496N.E.2d515(1986);WestPointPepperell,Inc.   v.McEntire,150Ga.App.728,258S.E.2d530(1979).,cAZ"Arial Regular ""  XXXX5 XX   Ad FILEDXX 5  October26,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd !X  eeee  7XXdd7  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TʽXXo][ee@ P ee=XXdd=Ӝtttjjr )<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  rtjjtt )>.*jx)` `@EI` 8ttxP tߛt@tt!THESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE#XXʽ #Ԉ  @*ATKNOXVILLEROBBYMcCURRY     8   )   d \   0      8   ) Plaintiff/Appellee   8   )  FORPUBLICATION  0(    0      8   )     v.  0      8   )  FILED: eeeeOCTOBEReeee26,1998      0      8   )     CONTAINERCORPORATIONOF  )  CAMPBELLCHANCERY H!    AMERICA,aDivisionof   8   )   JeffersonSmurfit     8   )  Hon.BillyJoeWhite,Chancellor   Corporation 0      8   )   ~   0      8   )  No.eeee03S01eeee9705CH00050 ld  Defendant/Appellant. 8   ) RJ   0      8   )  0      8   )  (WorkersCompensation)    0      8   FortheAppellant:     8     FortheAppellee: z MartinL.Ellis&     8     DavidH.eeeeDunawayeeee N F eeeeVondaeeeeM.eeeeLaughlineeee     8     eeeeDunawayeeee&Associates 4!, Butler,Vines&eeeeBabbeeee,eeeeP.L.L.C.eeee 8     eeeeLaFolletteeeee,Tennessee " Knoxville,Tennessee X oXXX@-#XXX X o # yXX}_yOPINION #y}_##XXy`#Ԉ ,3$,1 REVERSEDANDDISMISSED 8      @     BARKER,J. F8>16 Ѐ ,9$27G Ї@- OPINION    Inthisworkerscompensationaction,theemployer,ContainerCorporationofAmerica(C.C.A.),defendantappellant,hasappealedfromajudgmentoftheChanceryCourtofCampbellCountyfindingtheplaintiffappelleesinjuriesarosefromaworkrelateddisputeandwerethuscompensable.TheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,uponreferenceforfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(eeeeSuppeeee.1997),affirmedthetrialcourt.Thereafter,C.C.A.filedamotionforfullcourtreviewofthePanelsdecisionpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B)(Supp.1997).eeee WegrantedtheappealinthiscasetodeterminewhethertheappelleesinjuriesaroseoutofandinthecourseofhisemploymentwiththeC.C.A.Forthereasonsprovidedherein,weconcludethattheinjuriesdidnotoccurduringthecourseoftheappelleesemployment.ThedecisionofthePanelisreversedandthecaseisdismissed. @+BACKGROUND  %" H Theappellee,RobbyMcCurry,operatedaeeeeflexoeeeefoldergluermachineatC.C.A.splantfacility.HehadworkedforC.C.A.forsevenyearsandwasanoperatoronamachinecrew.Operatingthegluermachinerequiredateameffortandtheappelleewaspairedwithseveralcoworkers,includingoneGaryWoods. Ontheeveninginquestion,theappellee,Mr.Woods,andotheremployeesweresupposedtobeworkingtogetheronthegluermachine;however,theappelleecomplainedthatMr.Woodswasnotperforminghisjob.Theappelleereportedthe 5.4 problemtoasecondshiftsupervisorandMr.Woodswaslaterreprimandedforhisdeficientconduct.WhenMr.Woodsreturnedtothemachinecrew,heappearedangry,buthedidnotthreatenorharmtheappelleeatthattime. Theemployeesworkedovertimethateveningandcompletedtheirshiftatapproximately2:00a.m.Mr.Woodsclockedoutandlefttheplantshortlybeforetheappelleeandothercoworkers.Aftertheappelleeclockedout,hedrovehiscarsomeeighty(80)feetfromthecompanypremisesbeforestoppingonAndersonRoadtoassistafellowemployeewithcartrouble.Asheexitedhiscar,henoticedMr.Woodsdrivingupalongtheroadsidebehindhim.Mr.Woodsparkedhisvehicleneartheappelleeandaskediftheycouldtalk.Theappelleeagreedthattheyshouldtalkbecauseoftheirproblemsatwork.However,asheapproachedMr.Woodsvehicle,eeWMr.WWoodseepulledoutabaseballbatandbeganstrikingtheappelleemultipletimesonhishead,knee,andtheleftsideofhisbody.Theappelleesufferedarupturedspleenandseverebruisingasaresultoftheattack. TherecordreflectsthattherewasfrictionandstressinsidetheC.C.A.plantforaboutsixmonthsbeforetheassault.TheappelleeandotheremployeestestifiedthatthetensionwascausedbytheirworkrelationshipwithMr.Woods.Accordingtotestimonyattrial,Mr.Woodsoftenlistenedtomusicthroughportableheadphoneswhileonthejobandwouldnotrespondwhenspokentobycolleagues.Inaddition,hewouldholdupproductionlinesbyrefusingtoperformhisworkduties.TheappelleeandotheremployeescomplainedthatMr.Woodswouldliedown,performcalisthenicexercises,andhideinthewomensbathroomtoavoiddoinghisjob.TherewasalsosuspicionbysomeemployeesthatMr.Woodsdrankalcoholicbeveragesbeforeandduringhisworkshifts.  5.4  TheappelleeandcoworkerDeweySlashertestifiedthatthesupervisorsat C.C.A.werereluctanttoreprimandMr.Woodsforhisdeficientconduct.TheytheorizedthatthesupervisorswereintimidatedbyMr.Woodsbecauseofhislargestature.  #  1      ׀LowelleeeeMarloweeeeandDavidBrown,thesecondandthirdshiftsupervisorsat l d C.C.A.,testifiedthattheywerenotintimidatedbyMr.Woods.Mr.BrownstatedthathefrequentlyreceivedcomplaintsaboutvariousemployeesattheplantanddidnotperceiveanythingunusualwhentheappelleecomplainedaboutMr.Woodsontheeveningoftheeeassault.Mr.eeeeBrowneetestifiedthathetalkedtoMr.Woodsthateveninganddidnotnoticeanysignsofangerorintoxication.   h`  Mr.eeeeMarloweeee,thesupervisorinchargeoftheappelleeandothersecondshiftemployees,testifiedthathewasunawareofanyproblemsbetweentheappelleeandMr.Woodspriortotheassault.HerecalledthatMr.Woodshadarguedwiththeappelleeapproximatelytwomonthsbeforetheincident.However,heindicatedthathewouldnothavebeenafraidtoreprimandMr.WoodshadhebeeninformedofgMr.geeWoodseeallegeddrinkinganddisciplinaryproblems.HetestifiedthathehadnotreceivedanycomplaintsaboutMr.WoodshhiidrinkingonthejobfromeithertheappelleeoranyotheremployeeatC.C.A.   %"  ThetrialcourtfoundthattherewasfrictionintheworkplacebetweenMr.WoodsandotherC.C.A.employees.Accordingtothetrialcourt,theincidentbetweentheappelleeandMr.WoodsaroseoutofaworkrelateddisputeandwasaculminationofthestressandtensionatC.C.A.Therefore,althoughtheappelleesinjuriesoccurredoffcompanytimeandawayfromcompanypremises,thetrialcourt concludedthattheywerecompensableundertheWorkersCompensationAct.The (2 +0 o]  ho]  hgo]  o]  o]  geo]  o]  o]  o]  o]  o]  eWo]  WtrialcourtsjudgmentwasaffirmedbytheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsho]  hgo]  o]  o]  geo]  o]  o]  o]  o]  o]  eWo]  WPanel. ̀ @+ DISCUSSION     AnemployeesrighttorecoverundertheTennesseeWorkersCompensationActeTTeTe ee eTTT  #  2      eeisbaseduponafindingthattheemployeespersonalinjuryaroseoutofandin   thecourseofemployment.Tenn.CodeAnn.506103(a)(Supp.1997).Thephrases arisingoutofand inthecourseofemploymentarenotsynonymous.Woodsv.HarryB.WoodsPlumbingCo.,967S.W.2d768,771(Tenn.1998).They tl consistoftwodistinctelementswith arisingoutofpertainingtotheoriginoftheinjuryand inthecourseofemploymentreferringtothetime,place,andcircumstancesinwhichtheinjuryoccurred.eeeeMcAdamseeeev.eeeeCanaleeeee,200Tenn.655,294S.W.2d696,699  (1956).Bothelementsmustbesatisfiedtoimposeliabilityontheemployer.eeeeThorteneeee  v.RCAeeServS.SeeCo.,188Tenn.644,221S.W.2d954,955(1949). ph  WeshallfirstaddresswhethertheappelleesinjuriesaroseoutofhisemploymentwithC.C.A.The arisingoutofrequirementissatisfiedwhentheemployeesinjuryhasarationalconnectiontohisorherworkduties.eeeeBrodeneeeev. %" Sears,833S.W.2d496,498(Tenn.1992).Iftheemployeeisinjuredfromanassault, l'd $ ourfocusbecomeswhethertheassaulthadacausalconnectiontotheemployment,suchasadisputebetweenemployeesoverjobperformance,payortermination.See +#( WoodsPlumbingCo.,967S.W.2dat771. ,%*  Generally,ifoneemployeeassaultsanothersolelytogratifyapersonalorprivategrievance,unrelatedtoemployment,theresultinginjurydoesnotariseoutofemploymentwithinthemeaningoftheworkerscompensationlaws.eeeeBrimhalleeeev.Home 4,2 Ins.Co.,694S.W.2d931,932(Tenn.1985).Inappelleescase,however,theconflict 5.4 [  i[  ie[  [  [  [  [  [  [  [  [  [  [  [  [  eW[  WT[  [  TbetweentheappelleeandMr.Woodsoriginatedfromtheirworkrelationship.TherecordshowsthatMr.WoodsbecameangrywiththeappelleewhentheappelleecomplainedtosupervisorsaboutfMr.fWoodsdeficientjobperformance.Mr.WoodsharboredhisillfeelingsduringtheremainderoftheworkshiftandlaterattackedtheappelleeoutsideofC.C.A.premises.Thetwohadnorelationshipasidefrombeingsimilarlyemployed.Weareoftheopinionthattheassaultandresultinginjuriesaroseoutoftheappelleesemployment. Thenextquestioniswhethertheappelleewasinthecourseofemploymentwhentheassaultoccurred.InTennessee,thegeneralruleisthataninjuryreceivedbyanemployeewhileenroutetoorfromworkisnotinthecourseofemployment.SeePoolv.MetricConstructors,Inc.,681S.W.2d543,544(Tenn.1984).ThisCourt,  however,hasrecognizedlimitedexceptionsincaseswhereexcursionsawayfromtheworkplaceareasubstantialpartoftheservicesforwhichtheemployeeishiredandcompensated.SeeSmithv.RoyalGlobeIns.Co.,Inc.,551S.W.2d679,681(Tenn. 0 ( 1977). Otherexceptionstothegeneralrulehavebeenmadeincaseswhereemployeesareinjuredwhileenroutetoorfromtheworkplace,eitherontheemployerspremisesorbetweentheworkfacilityandemployeeparkingareas.IneeeeLollareeeev.WalMartStores,Inc.,767S.W.2d143,150(Tenn.1989),anemployeewas *#( injuredwhensheslippedonapatchoficeinthecompanyparkinglot,aftershehadclockedoutandwaspreparingtoleavework.Id.at143.Inallowingrecovery,we .',  adoptedapremisesliabilityrule,holdingthatthecourseofemploymentincludeseebothee \0T). thetimeofworkandareasonabletimeduringwhichtheemployeeisontheemployerspremises  #  3      ׀enroutetoorfromtheworkplace.Id.at150.   e  FollowingeeeeLollareeee,thisCourthadoccasiontoaddresswhetherthepremisesrule l d shouldbeextendedtocoverpublicthoroughfaresthatemployeesmustusetoaccesscompanyparkingareas.SeeeeeeCopelandeeeev.Leaf,Inc.,829S.W.2d140,144(Tenn.   1992).IneeeeCopelandeeee,itwasnecessaryfortheplaintiffandotheremployeestocrossa   publicstreet,runninginfrontofthecompanyplant,togettoanemployeeparkinglot.Seeid.at141.Onthedayinquestion,theplaintiffwaswalkingacrossthepublic h` streetwhenshewasknockeddownandinjuredbyafellowemployee.Id.Shehad 4, clockedoutandwasapproachingtheparkingareawhentheinjuryoccurred.Id.󀀀   TheCourtnotedthatundereeeeLollareeee,theplaintiffsrighttorecoverdependedupon  whethershehadreachedtheemployeeparkinglotatthetimeofherinjury.See d\ eeeeCopelandeeee,829S.W.2dat141.TheCourtstatedthatitwouldbeinconsistentand 0 ( illogicalundertheworkerscompensationlawstodenycoveragemerelybecausetheplaintiffwasonapublicstreetandhadnotyetreachedthecompanyparkingarea.Id. #  at144.Therefore,theCourtextendedthepremisesruletoallowrecoveryforemployeeswhoareinjuredonpublicthoroughfareswhiletravelingonanecessaryroutebetweentheemployersworkfacilityandparkinglot.Id.eXXeXeeeeXXX  #  4      ee ,)$"&  *#(  ThedecisionineeeeCopelandeeeewasbasedinpartuponourrecognitionthatpublic  thoroughfaresbecomeanintegralpartoftheemployerspremiseswhenusedbyemployeesasnecessaryroutesbetweentheworkfacilityandtheemployeeparkingarea.Seeid.Whenemployeestravelonthesepublicroutestoandfromwork,they l d aredeemedtobeinthecourseofemploymenteventhoughtheyarenotofficiallyoncompanytime.Thereasonforthisextendedruleisthatemployersareresponsibleforcreatingthenecessityofemployeesencounteringparticularhazardswhiletravelingbetweentheparkingareasandtheworkfacility. Inthiscase,wefindthattheincidentbetweentheappelleeandMr.Woodsoccurredoutsidethescopeofemployerliabilityasintendedbythepremisesrule.Theappelleewasinjuredapproximatelyeighty(80)feetfromthecompanypremisesafterhehaddrivenawayfromtheworkplaceandhadstoppedonapublicroadtoassistafellowemployee.Theappelleeadmittedattrialthathisdecisiontostopwaspersonalandnotrelatedtoorrequiredbyhisemployer.Hefurtherstatedthathehadcompletedhisworkdutiesandwasonhiswayhomewhentheinjuriesoccurred.π ThePaneldeterminedthattheappelleesinjurieswerecompensablebecausetheyoccurrednearbyC.C.A.premises,shortlyaftertheappelleehadcompletedhisworkshift.ThePanelheldthat, [eeeew]heneeeetheillwillarisesintheworkplaceandtheassaultiscarriedoutincloseproximalandtemporalscopetotheperformanceofwork,asinthiscase,...theinjuriesariseoutofandinthecourseofemployment. ThePanelsdecisionessentiallycreatesa soclosebyrule,requiringcourtstofocusuponthedegreeoftimeanddistancebetweenworkperformance,theemployerspremises,andthelocationoftheemployeesinjury.ThisCourthaspreviouslyrejectedasimilarrule,discussedinSmithv.CameleeeeMfgeeee.Co.,192Tenn. 5.4 670,241S.W.2d771,774(1951),findingthatsucharulewouldbedifficulttoapply 706 uniformlyandisneithercontemplatedbynorrequiredundertheworkerscompensationlaws.Id.FollowingSmithv.Camel,weagaindeclinetoadoptaliability  rulethatisbaseduponarbitrarymeasurementsoftimeanddistancefromtheperformanceofwork. WecontinuetofollowthepremisesruleasadoptedineeeeLollareeeeandeeeeCopelandeeee,   supra.Incaseswhereanemployeeisinjuredwhileenroutetoorfromwork,the   injuryisinthecourseofemploymentifitoccursontheemployerspremisesoronanecessaryroutebetweentheworkfacilityandtheareasprovidedforemployeeparking.Oncetheemployeehasexitedtheparkingareaandbeginstravelingonpersonaltime,awayfromtheemployerspremises,heisnolongerinthecourseofemployment. @+CONCLUSION d\   Wearemindfulthattheappelleesufferedextensiveinjuriesfromabrutaland "  senselessattackarisingoutofhisemploymentwithC.C.A.Nevertheless,byexitingtheworkcomplexandstoppingalongapublicroad,theappelleewasoutsideofcompanypremisesandwasnolongerinanareaofegressoringressrequiredbyhisemployer.We,therefore,concludethathisinjurieswerenotinthecourseofemployment.  Basedupontheforegoing,theappelleesinjuries,althoughunfortunate,arenot .', compensableunderworkerscompensation.ThejudgmentofthePanelisreversedandthecaseisdismissed,withcostsofthisappealtaxedtotheappellee. H!  L2D+0 @  0      8     ____________________________f4  0      8     WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICE 6/5 @     YXXCONCUR:eeeeDrowotaeeee,Birch,Holder,JJ.;Anderson,C.J.,notparticipating.eeeeZXXee 6/5 P     ddee@gg$SUPREMECOURT#XXZ+[#,KNOXVILLE  ROBBYMcCURRY     8   )       0      8   ) Plaintiff/Appellee   8   )  CAMPBELLCHANCERY H!  #  \T   0      8   )  NO.P13,742Below H!  #  B:  v.  0      8   ) (    0      8   )CONTAINERCORPORATIONOF  )  NO.eeee03S01eeee9705CH00050   AMERICA,aDivisionof   8   )   JeffersoneeeeSmurfiteeee     8   )  SpecialWorkersCompensation   Corporation 0      8   )  AppealsPanelReversed, H!      0      8   )  CaseDismissed   Defendant/Appellant. 8   )   rj   0      8   )  0      8 @TT,JUDGMENT   ThiscasewasheardupontherecordonappealfromtheSpecialWorkersCompensationAppealsPanel,pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.506225(e)(5)(B)(Supp.1997),andinconsiderationthereof,thisCourtisoftheopinionthattheappelleesinjuriesdidnotoccurduringthecourseofhisemploymentwiththeappellant,C.C.A. Inaccordancewiththeopinionfiledherein,itis,therefore,orderedandadjudgedthatthejudgmentofthePanelisreversedandthecaseisdismissed. Costsofthisappealwillbetaxedtotheappellee,RobbyMcCurry,forwhichexecutionwillissueifnecessary.-bee10/26/98ee