US Airways Liable for Flight Attendant's Injury on Shuttle Bus
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that a flight attendant who slipped and fell while traveling to the airport on a shuttle bus from the parking lot was injured in the scope of her employment.
November 21, 2019 at 04:26 PM
4 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that a flight attendant who slipped and fell while traveling to the airport on a shuttle bus from the parking lot was injured in the scope of her employment.
In reaching its decision, the justices upheld the ruling of the Commonwealth Court in favor of plaintiff Betty Bockelman, which held that the parking lot at Philadelphia International Airport where Bockelman parked and took the shuttle to work was, despite being owned by the city of Philadelphia, critical for her employment. The court rejected US Airways' argument that Bockelman's transit was not part of her employment.
"Bockelman used the airport parking lot and shuttle service to enter and exit her workplace. As part of US Airways' business relationship with the airport, US Airways clearly was aware that the Division of Aviation would make employee parking available to the airline's employees," Justice David Wecht wrote in the court's majority opinion.
"Indeed, the evidence presented to the WCJ suggests that, had the division not done so, US Airways would have been obligated under its collective bargaining agreement with the Association of Flight Attendants to reimburse flight attendants like Bockelman for the cost of airport parking," Wecht continued. "Additionally, US Airways was required to (and did) obtain [Secured Identification Display Area] badges—which could then be used to enter the division's employee parking lots—for all of its Philadelphia-based flight attendants."
Justices Max Baer and Kevin Dougherty filed concurring opinions.
Baer, joined Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, wrote to distance himself from the majority's indication that the Commonwealth Court's rulings in Waronsky v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Mellon Bank), Ortt v. WCAB (PPL Services) and PPL v. WCAB (Kloss) were unpersuasive and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's 1978 ruling in Epler v. North American Rockwell.
Those cases, unlike Bockelman and Epler, Baer said, involved claimants who were injured in parking lots that were optional to park in.
Justice Kevin Dougherty wrote separately to emphasize that the majority's opinion should not be interpreted "as expanding Epler v. North American Rockwell Corp. to all avenues of ingress to and egress from the workplace."
According to court documents, Bockelman drove to the Philadelphia International Airport every day for work and parked in the employee lot. She would then board a shuttle bus to the terminal and take one at the end of the day to return to the parking lot.
On Jan. 23, 2015, she slipped in a puddle of water in the bus and fell while trying to put her luggage on an overhead rack. She crushed her left foot. She filed a workers' compensation claim and the judge ruled in her favor, holding that the injury occurred on the employer's premises, Bockelman's presence on the shuttle bus was required by the nature of her employment, and her injury was caused by the condition of the premises.
US Airways argued that it did not own the parking lot or the bus, so the injury did not occur on its premises. It also contested that Bockelman was required to use the bus, claiming US Airways never ordered employees to use any specific mode of transportation to get to work.
However, Wecht said Epler was controlling.
"We stand by Epler's conclusion that the phrase 'the employer's premises' in Section 301(c)(1) of the act should be construed liberally to include any area that is integral to the employer's business operations, including any reasonable means of ingress to or egress from the workplace," he said, adding that, given the facts of Bockelman's case, "we have little difficulty concluding that the parking lot and shuttle were connected with, and thus integral to, US Airways' business operations at the Philadelphia International Airport."
Alfred J. Carlson III of Martin Law in Philadelphia represents Bockelman.
"It's a great decision for injured workers in Pennsylvania and employees who work at the Philadelphia airport," Carlson said of the Supreme Court's ruling.
Kimberly A. Zabroski of Littler Mendelson in Pittsburgh represents US Airways and not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Sanctions Order Over Toyota's Failure to Provide English Translations of Documents Vacated by Appeals Court
- 2Roberts Calls Court's Relationship With Congress 'Strained.' Who's to Blame?
- 3Class Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
- 4Buchanan Ingersoll Launches in Chicago With 17-Lawyer Team From Locke Lord
- 5$2M Settlement for Woman Struck by New Jersey Transit Bus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250