What Do You Think?
Employees can sustain compensable injuries when they walk from the building where they work to a designated employee parking lot. But what if an employee gets injured when he leaves an employee-provided walkway for a makeshift path so he can get to his car sooner? A case involving a Ford plant worker sheds light on that issue
The auto worker in that case left the jobsite and, instead of taking the employer provided sidewalk all the way to the lot, followed a shortcut that was a more direct route to his car. At least several people used the shortcut that day. It was a makeshift path, mostly gravel, well worn, that passed through a grassy area. At the entrance, there were two flagstones, although no one knew how they got there. The gravel, the company said, was likely leftover from when the parking lot was first constructed. There was nothing to indicate the company put the gravel there or that the company played any part in creating the path.
While walking on the path, the climate tripped and injured his ankle. The workers’ compensation commission denied his claim on the basis that it did not arise out of employment. The claimant appealed.
To be compensable, an injury must occur in the course and scope of employment and arise out of employment. When an employee voluntarily exposes himself to a danger for his own convenience, and not for the benefit to the employer, the accident does not arise out of employment.
Did the plant worker’s injury arise out of employment?
A. No. Employees created the path by walking through the grass and the claimant didn’t have to use it.
B. Yes. The company was acquiescing in its employees’ use of the path.
If you selected Answer A, you agreed with the court in Rodriguez v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, Inc., No. 1-25-0619WC (Ill. Ct. App. 01/06/26), which held that the injury did not arise out of employment.
The claimant here took the path solely for his own convenience, and without providing any benefit to the employer.
Looking to bolster your “arising out of” knowledge? Look to Simply Research.
If the employer had made the path, that might have supported the argument that the employee’s use of the path was for Ford’s benefit. However, there was no clear evidence that the employer created or maintained the path. While there was gravel present, that could have been left over from construction of the parking garage. Further, it was not clear who placed the flagstones at the entrance.
Further, the claimant, by taking the shortcut, exposed himself to additional danger.
“For his own personal convenience, claimant abandoned the smoothness and safety of the employer-provided sidewalk for the ruggedness and risk of the employee-created path,” the court said.
It was true that there were signs the employer acquiesced in employees’ use of the path. After all, there had been enough foot traffic there to wear it into the grassy area and multiple employees were using it. However, an employer’s acquiescence does not transform a personal risk into an employment risk, the court stated.
The Evolving Landscape of “Arising Out Of” Employment
The Rodriguez v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, Inc. case perfectly illustrates a core tenet of workers’ compensation law: the requirement that an injury “arises out of” employment. But this seemingly straightforward principle is becoming increasingly complex as the nature of work itself evolves. We’re seeing a shift away from traditional employer-controlled environments towards more flexible, remote, and gig-based work arrangements. This raises critical questions about employer responsibility for employee safety and, consequently, workers’ compensation claims.
The Rise of Remote Work and Commuting Claims
The dramatic increase in remote work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, is creating a new wave of legal challenges. Traditionally, commuting to and from work was generally *not* considered “arising out of employment.” However, with many employees now working from home, the line between “commuting” and “employment” is blurring.
Did you know? Some states are beginning to address this ambiguity by extending workers’ compensation coverage to include injuries sustained during remote work, particularly if the employer directs or controls the remote work setup.
Expect to see more litigation surrounding injuries occurring during hybrid work arrangements – for example, an employee injured while running a quick errand during a scheduled break from a home office. The key will be establishing the degree of employer control and whether the activity was a reasonable extension of employment duties.
The Gig Economy and Independent Contractor Status
The gig economy, characterized by short-term contracts and freelance work, presents another significant challenge. Determining whether a gig worker is an “employee” or an “independent contractor” is crucial for workers’ compensation eligibility. Misclassification is rampant, and the legal battles are intensifying.
Recent court cases, like those involving ride-sharing and delivery services, are pushing for broader definitions of “employment” to include gig workers, arguing that these companies exert sufficient control over their workers to warrant workers’ compensation coverage. This trend could significantly expand the pool of individuals eligible for benefits.
Expanding Definitions of “Premises” in a Remote World
The Rodriguez case hinged on the employee leaving a designated pathway. But what constitutes the “premises” of an employer in a remote work context? Is it limited to the physical home office, or does it extend to the entire home?
Courts are grappling with this question. A growing argument is that if the employer requires or allows employees to use their homes for work purposes, the employer has a duty to ensure a reasonably safe work environment, even within the broader confines of the home. This could lead to claims for injuries sustained during non-work activities within the home if they are deemed to be a foreseeable consequence of the employment.
The Role of Technology and Workplace Safety
Technology is also playing a role in shaping the future of workers’ compensation. The increasing use of wearable devices and data analytics to monitor employee health and safety is creating new opportunities for proactive risk management. However, it also raises privacy concerns and potential legal challenges related to data security and discrimination.
Pro Tip: Employers should invest in comprehensive ergonomics assessments for remote workers and provide resources for creating safe and healthy home office environments. Documenting these efforts can be crucial in defending against future claims.
FAQ: Navigating the “Arising Out Of” Maze
- Q: What does “arising out of employment” mean?
A: It means the injury must be caused by a risk inherent in the nature of the work or the conditions under which the work is performed. - Q: Does workers’ compensation cover injuries during a commute?
A: Generally, no, but this is changing with the rise of remote work and hybrid arrangements. - Q: Are gig workers eligible for workers’ compensation?
A: It depends on their classification as an employee or independent contractor, which is often a complex legal determination. - Q: What is employer acquiescence?
A: It refers to an employer’s implicit approval of an employee’s actions, even if those actions are not explicitly authorized. However, as the Rodriguez case shows, acquiescence alone doesn’t guarantee compensability.
The legal landscape surrounding workers’ compensation is constantly evolving. Staying informed about these trends is crucial for employers, employees, and legal professionals alike. The core principle of “arising out of employment” remains central, but its application is becoming increasingly nuanced in the face of a changing world of work.
What are your thoughts on the future of workers’ compensation? Share your insights in the comments below!
Explore more articles on workers’ compensation law and industry updates.
