## Facts

- Gina Pallotta worked for Foxon Packaging Corporation as a press operator.
- On July 20, 1978, Pallotta punched out for lunch and left through the west-side exit, the only way out of the building.
- She crossed the street to buy food and returned by using a driveway located between Foxon’s building and the neighboring Wal‑Kar Engraving Company building.
- Pallotta sat down to eat in a parking area behind Wal‑Kar, about six feet from Foxon’s entrance, on property that did not belong to Foxon.
- Foxon employees regularly used that parking area for paid coffee breaks and unpaid lunch breaks, and Pallotta testified Foxon knew of this practice.
- After finishing lunch, Pallotta spoke with a friend while some Foxon employees played baseball nearby.
- Pallotta was struck in the head by a ball thrown by another Foxon employee.
- She returned to work and reported the incident to the plant manager, who arranged for her to be taken to Roger Williams Hospital.
- A physician examined Pallotta, prescribed treatment, and stated she was totally disabled as a result of the injury.
- Pallotta filed an original petition for compensation under Rhode Island’s Workers’ Compensation Act.
- A trial commissioner denied and dismissed the petition, finding no evidence Foxon controlled or jointly controlled the passageway or the area where Pallotta was sitting, and finding no sufficient connection between the injury and the employment.
- The full commission affirmed, and Pallotta appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee’s injury, caused by a co-employee’s thrown ball during an unpaid lunch break in an off-premises area not shown to be owned or controlled by the employer, arose out of and in the course of employment under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the full commission, which had affirmed the trial commissioner’s denial and dismissal of the petition.
- The court agreed that Pallotta did not establish a sufficient causal connection between her injury and her employment.
- The court accepted the commission’s supported findings that Foxon did not control or jointly control the location where the injury occurred.

## Legal Principles

- A workers’ compensation claim requires proof that the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment; the employee must show a causal connection between the employment and the injury.
- Injuries occurring during an unpaid lunch break are generally outside the course of employment when the employee is not performing job duties and is away from the employer’s premises.
- When an injury occurs off the employer’s premises, the employee must show facts tying the location or risk to the employment, such as employer control (including joint control) of the area where the injury occurred.
- An employer’s awareness that employees commonly use a nearby off-premises area for breaks does not, without evidence of control, make that area part of the employer’s premises for compensation purposes.
- On appellate review, factual findings of the Workers’ Compensation Commission are upheld when supported by competent evidence, and the court will not reweigh those findings.

## Conclusion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the denial of benefits because Pallotta was injured while punched out for an unpaid lunch, sitting in a parking area owned by a neighboring business and not shown to be controlled by Foxon, and she failed to prove a sufficient causal connection between her employment and being struck by a ball thrown during co-employees’ recreational activity.


Pallotta v. Foxon Packaging Corporation, 477 A.2d 82 (1984)