## Facts

- Mary R. Conoboy worked for Illinois Bell on the second floor of the Woodfield Shopping Mall.
- After finishing work at 5:00 p.m., she left Illinois Bell’s leased premises, took an escalator to the first floor, and walked toward an exit to go home.
- About 12 feet from an exit door in a mall corridor, she slipped and fell on her knee; she testified the floor was waxed and slippery.
- The fall occurred in a mall common area maintained under the mall’s sole discretion; Illinois Bell had no authority over common-area maintenance.
- Illinois Bell, as a tenant, paid a pro rata share of common-area maintenance costs.
- Conoboy was not required to use any particular route or exit and had used different exits previously.
- An arbitrator awarded benefits; the Industrial Commission adopted the award; the circuit court modified and otherwise confirmed it.
- The appellate court reversed and vacated compensation, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; the Illinois Supreme Court allowed review on a certified question.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee’s injury in a shopping mall common area, occurring after she left her employer’s leased premises while walking to an exit to go home, arose out of and in the course of employment under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.
2. Whether a tenant-employer’s cost-sharing for common-area maintenance, without control over the area, brings a mall corridor within the employer “premises” exception to the going-and-coming rule.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment vacating the award of compensation.
- The court held Conoboy’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.
- The court concluded the mall common area was not part of Illinois Bell’s premises for workers’ compensation purposes because Illinois Bell lacked control over the area and did not require a specific route.
- The court found the alleged hazard (a slippery waxed floor) presented a risk shared with the general public, not a risk distinctly connected to the employment.

## Legal Principles

- A compensable injury under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act must both “arise out of” and occur “in the course of” employment.
- Under the going-and-coming rule, injuries sustained while traveling to or from work are generally noncompensable.
- The “premises” exception may apply when the injury occurs on property effectively part of the employer’s premises, typically based on employer ownership, control, or a required means of ingress/egress.
- An employer’s payment toward common-area maintenance, without possession or control, does not convert a publicly accessible common area into the employer’s premises.
- Where the employee is free to choose among multiple exits and is not directed to a particular route, an injury along a chosen path in a common area is less likely to be considered within the course of employment.
- An injury does not “arise out of” employment when it results from a risk common to the general public and not increased or created by the employment relationship.

## Conclusion

Because Conoboy was injured after leaving Illinois Bell’s leased space, in a mall corridor controlled by the mall and open to the public, while taking a nonrequired route to go home, her fall was governed by the going-and-coming rule and was not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act.


Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 131 Ill. 2d 478, 546 N.E.2d 603 (Ill. 1989)