Darocha v. Providence Braid Co., 030720 RIWC, 2016-03336
| Case Date | March 07, 2020 |
| Court | Rhode Island |
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:That the findings of fact and the orders contained in a decree of this Court entered on August 11, 2017 be, and they hereby are, affirmed. PER ORDER; Nicholas DiFilippo, Administrator DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION OLSSON, J. This matter is before the Appellate Division on the employee's claim of appeal from the decision and decree of the trial judge denying her original petition alleging she sustained work-related injuries on February 5,2016, when she slipped and fell on the sidewalk outside of the entrance to her workplace. After a thorough review of the record and consideration of the arguments of both parties, we find no error on the part of the trial judge and deny the employee's appeal. Julia DaRocha, the employee, testified through an interpreter that she worked for the Providence Braid Company, the employer, at its factory located at 358 Lowden Street, . Pawtucket, Rhode Island, for over twenty (20) years before she was injured traveling her regular route to work. The employee, who worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift with her mother, testified that she regularly drove herself and her mother to work. She would drop her mother off by the factory entrance before parking her car in a lot located on the opposite side of Lowden Street owned by the employer. The employee explained that she would then walk from her parked car to the factory entrance, which required crossing Lowden Street and traversing the sidewalk in front of the staircase on the side of the factory which led to the entrance door. The employee testified that on February 5; 2016, there was snow and ice outside, but she drove to work, parked her car, and walked across Lowden Street without incident. She explained that as she walked across the sidewalk towards the staircase leading to the factory entrance, she slipped on black ice and fell to the ground landing on her back and hitting her left hand on the ground. The employee stated that her co-workers helped her to her feet and assisted her in walking up the stairs to the factory door. Once inside the building, she immediately reported the incident to her supervisor. She contacted her daughter who came to pick her up and brought her to the hospital. The employee did not punch in or work at all that evening. The employee acknowledged that there were no signs prohibiting parking on Lowden Street, but she preferred parking in the lot across the street from the factory as it was convenient, and spots were usually available when she got there an hour or so before midnight. Although the employee usually parked in the same spot each night, she was not assigned a particular parking space. The employer presented the deposition and affidavit of Howard Huntoon, Jr., vice president of Providence Braid Company and co-owner of both the factory premises and parking lot. Mr. Huntoon testified that there is no assigned parking in the company lot and his employees park in the lot on a first-come, first-serve basis. He stated that parking on Lowden Street is not prohibited. In his affidavit, Mr. Huntoon explained that the land he owns on Lowden Street runs between the cross streets of West Avenue, which runs to the west, and Pawtucket Avenue, which runs to the east. He averred that the City of Pawtucket owns the sidewalks that run on both sides of Lowden Street and as proof, he provided a copy of a drawing that Ms property fire insurance carrier prepared in 1957 that excludes the sidewalks from coverage. Photographs of the Lowden Street sidewalk and factory entrance, as well as the parking lot, were introduced into evidence. The photographs are consistent with the testimony of the employee and Mr. Huntoon. John DaSilva, the plant manager, testified regarding the details of the employee's job duties. In addition, the depositions and records of Drs. Richard Anderson and A. Louis Mariorenzi were admitted into evidence, as well as records from Miriam Hospital. We need not address the medical evidence as the trial judge denied the petition on the grounds that the going-and-coming rule applied. The initial determination to be made by the trial judge was whether the employee's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. The trial judge noted that the going-and-coming rule operates to bar the payment of compensation to an employee who is injured while traveling to and from the workplace. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has carved out certain exceptions to the rule in cases with specific fact patterns. In denying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial