Another trend in recent decades has been for many employers to lease rather than own the workplace premises. As suggested by the “parking lot exception” to the “going and coming rule,” the traditional line between being covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law and not being covered is the employer’s property line. See Kowcun v. Bybee, 182 Or 271 (1947) (injury in the employer’s parking lot after the worker’s shift ended found compensable). The employer’s “premises” for workers’ compensation purposes, however, could be extended by the employer’s exercise of control over adjacent areas. See Montgomery v. SIAC, 224 Or 380 (1960) (“premises” extended from the employer’s parking lot to an adjacent public roadway intersection based on the employer’s control over a traffic light).
In applying the going and coming rule to leased premises, the board and the courts have focused on the employer’s lease agreement in determining both the boundaries of the leased premises and the employer’s level of control over other related areas, such as parking lots or common areas. See Henderson v. S.D. Deacon, 127 Or App 33, 336-37 (1994) (examining the employer’s lease agreement to conclude that the employer had sufficient control of the elevator in the building where the employer leased space to support the compensability of an injury sustained in exiting the elevator); Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Oregon v. Frazer, 252 Or App 726, 731 (2012) (employer’s leased premises in a “strip” mall did not include a “smoking hut” at the edge of the parking lot 100 feet from the employer’s front door), rev den, 353 Or 428 (2013).
Depending on the terms of the lease agreement, an injury in the parking lot of the leased premises may or may not be compensable. See Tracy Curtis, 70 Van Natta 237, 239 (2018) (holding that the “parking lot” exception to the going and coming rule did not apply because the employer’s lease agreement did not give it any property interest in or control over the parking lot).