Phillips v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Rhode Island, LLC, 042720 RIWC, 2017-00738
| Case Date | April 27, 2020 |
| Court | Rhode Island |
1. That the petitioner has failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the death of the employee, Joseph Phillips, on December 15, 2016, arose out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent employer.It is, therefore, ORDERED: 1. That the petition of the surviving spouse for compensation benefits and funeral expenses is denied and dismissed. PER ORDER: Nicholas DiFilippo, Administrator DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION OLSSON, J. This matter is before the Appellate Division on the employer's claim of appeal from a decision and decree of the trial judge granting Doris Phillips' (the deceased employee's wife) petition for compensation benefits and funeral expenses. In the petition, she alleged that her husband, the employee, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment when an automobile struck and killed him while he was walking across the street from the employer's facility to a parking lot. The trial judge initially denied the petition at the pretrial conference, but after trial, granted the wife's petition and the employer filed a timely claim for trial. After a comprehensive review of the record in this matter and consideration of the arguments of both parties, we grant the employer's appeal and vacate the trial judge's decision and decree. The parties stipulated to certain facts of the case. They agreed that the employee's average weekly wage was Two-Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars and Forty-Five Cents ($233.45), and that the employee died as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on Jefferson Boulevard. The parties stipulated that at the time of his death, the employee was married and lived with his wife, Doris Phillips. A number of Enterprise employees testified during the trial. In addition, the report of the Warwick Police Department was admitted into evidence, as well as three (3) lease agreements for parking in three (3) parking lots, and several photographs and diagrams of the area showing the facility and parking lot in question. Michael Pezzullo testified that he works as a "chase driver" for Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Rhode Island, LLC (the employer or Enterprise), located on Jefferson Boulevard in Warwick. He explained that chase drivers follow the drivers who are delivering rental cars to other Enterprise branches in order to pick them up and transport them back to the employer's facility located on Jefferson Boulevard (the facility). Mr. Pezzullo drives his personal vehicle to work every day and parks in the lot on the opposite side of Jefferson Boulevard from the facility ("J-Lot"). Mr. Pezzullo explained that Enterprise employees cannot park their cars on the facility's property; instead, there are three (3) different parking lots where employees can park, but J-Lot is the most convenient place to park because it is the closest to the facility. Tr. 14:12-18. Mr. Pezzullo explained that when he was first hired, Fred Webber, the drivers' supervisor, "told" him to park in J-Lot, but that parking in J-Lot operated on a first come/first served basis. Tr. 11:13-17, 12:2-10, 14:19-23. He testified that Enterprise and other businesses lease parking spots in J-Lot. A lease agreement which was introduced into evidence showed there are two (2) designated areas in J-Lot where Enterprise employees can park their vehicles; one (1) area had twenty-four (24) spaces and the other area had six (6) spaces. See Ee's Ex. 4, License Agreement (Parking Spaces), Exhibit A attachment. After Mr. Pezzulto parks in J-Lot each morning, he walks across Jefferson Boulevard to reach the facility. However, Mr. Pezzullo explained that the employer provides a shuttle service that transports employees to and from the parking lots. Mr. Pezzullo testified that he occasionally drove the shuttle that transported employees from the parking lots to the facility, but two (2) drivers named Jerry and Carl usually drove the shuttle. He testified that the shuttle service is always available for employees. The shuttle service usually ran in the morning from about 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., and after that, employees could call Mr. Webber if they needed a ride and he would send the shuttle to pick them up. Mr. Pezzullo indicated that the shuttle service is not necessary in the afternoon because at the end of each day, the chase driver drops the drivers off at their personal vehicles and they can go home from there. Then, the chase driver drives the company van back to the facility to park the van and can either have another driver pick him up and drive him to his personal car or Mr. Webber could coordinate a ride for the chase driver. He stated that he had never requested a ride to his personal vehicle from anyone, but he might accept when offered one. He also explained that when arriving back to the facility there is no "consistent procedure, " but if it was after hours, the drivers would be unable to clock out because the facility would be closed. Tr. 122:25, 129:21-24. According to Mr. Pezzullo, most drivers got out of the van and drove home when he dropped them off at their personal vehicles. Tr. 130:14-16. Mr. Pezzullo testified that although there is a shuttle available to transport employees across the street, he often chooses to walk across the street instead because he arrives between 6:15 and 6:30 in the morning even though his shift starts at 8:00. He stated that walking across the street was not prohibited, and no one ever told him he had to take the shuttle to travel to and from the parking lots. Further, he stated that Mr. Webber was aware that some employees walked across the street and would just reiterate that the shuttle was available. Tr. 17:17-21. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial