Bruntz-Ferguson v. Liberty Mutual Ins., 485 P.3d 903

Claimant slipped on a snowy/icy curb in a gravel path designated as a "Common Area" while walking to her call-center job shortly before her shift and was injured.
Employer leased office space that included non-exclusive rights to use the common area, paid a share of common-area maintenance, could request repairs, and was entitled to a pro‑rata rent abatement if the landlord failed to timely make repairs; the lease also stated maintenance was subject to the landlord’s "sole management and control."
Employer denied the workers’ compensation claim under the going-and-coming rule; an ALJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, concluding the landlord’s sole control over maintenance meant employer lacked sufficient control to trigger the parking‑lot exception and that the snow/ice was a neutral, non‑employment risk.
On judicial review, the court evaluated the unitary work‑connection test ("in the course of" and "arising out of") and whether employer exercised "some control" over the injury site to invoke the parking‑lot exception.
The court concluded employer had "some control" (right to request repairs and rent‑abatement remedy) so the parking‑lot exception applied, and that the snow/ice, though a neutral risk, was a risk to which claimant’s work environment exposed her during normal ingress, satisfying the "arising out of" prong.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether employer had sufficient control over the common area to trigger the parking‑lot exception to the going‑and‑coming rule	Lease rights to request repairs and rent‑abatement show employer control over the common area	Landlord had "sole discretion" over maintenance, so employer lacked sufficient control	Employer had "some control" (right to request repairs and rent abatement); parking‑lot exception applies; "in the course of" satisfied
Whether the injury "arose out of" employment when caused by snow/ice (a neutral risk)	Claimant's normal ingress is part of work environment; neutral risk exposed by work conditions makes injury compensable	Snow/ice is a neutral, weather‑related risk unrelated to employment and breaks causal connection	Snow/ice is a neutral risk but claimant was exposed by her work environment during normal ingress; causal connection exists; "arising out of" satisfied

Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or. 363 (unitary work‑connection test; "arising out of" and "in the course of" are prongs of single inquiry)
Cope v. West American Ins. Co., 309 Or. 232 (employer control over area can satisfy parking‑lot exception)
Henderson v. S.D. Deacon Corp., 127 Or. App. 333 (lease right to require repairs supports finding of employer control)
Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc., 331 Or. 178 (no mechanical formula; evaluate factors under work‑connection test)
Phil A. Livesley Co. v. Russ, 296 Or. 25 (categories of risk: employment, personal, neutral)
Hearthstone Manor v. Stuart, 192 Or. App. 153 (normal ingress/egress can make an injury part of work environment exposure)
Redman Industries, Inc. v. Lang, 326 Or. 32 (causal connection requirement between injury and employment)
SAIF v. Marin, 139 Or. App. 518 (intervening events can break causal connection)