Workers’ compensation provides benefits for workers who are injured in the course of their employment. It also protects workers from being sued by any third party they may injure in the course of their employment. Thus, for example, a worker who gets hurt operating a crane would normally be entitled to workers’ comp benefits. And a pedestrian injured by that worker usually wouldn’t be able to sue him. But what if the worker was drunk when the incident occurred? Does the worker’s drunkenness affect whether the incident was in “the course of” his employment? Stated differently, does being drunk disqualify the worker from eligibility for benefits and remove his immunity from being sued by the pedestrian? Here are two cases in which a court and tribunal had to answer these questions.
WORKER WINS
FACTS
A contractor hired a worker to install siding on new homes. At the end of the day, the worker had dinner, during which he drank two or three beers. He also “probably” smoked a marijuana joint afterwards. The worker returned to the worksite around 6:00 pm and continued installing siding. Sometime after midnight, he fell off scaffolding and shattered his heel. The worker needed surgery and filed a workers’ comp claim. The claim was denied on the grounds that the worker was so intoxicated at the time of the incident that the injury didn’t occur in the course of his employment. So he appealed.
RULING
The ON Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal ruled that the worker was entitled to benefits.
EXPLANATION
The Appeals Tribunal said the worker was engaged in the performance of a work-related duty when he was injured: He was installing siding, the job he was hired to do. The only remaining question: Was the worker so intoxicated at the time of the incident that he took himself out of the course of his employment? The answer to this question, explained the Tribunal, depended on whether the worker was so drunk that he couldn’t perform his duties. The court ruled he wasn’t too drunk to do the job. The worker had worked for several hours before falling. Also, the medical reports from the hospital where he was treated that night didn’t indicate that the worker had been drinking.
Decision No. 1688/05, [2005] ONWSIAT 2248 (CanLII), Oct. 14, 2005
WORKER LOSES
FACTS
A worker was hauling snow for his employer. He drove to a bar where he got drunk. As he drove away from the bar in the employer’s truck, he rear-ended a vehicle, injuring the driver. The injured driver wanted to sue the worker for negligence. So the driver asked the Workers’ Compensation Board for a ruling on whether the worker was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the car accident. The Board concluded that the worker wasn’t acting in the course of his employment and so the injured driver could sue him. The worker appealed.
RULING
The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that the injured driver could sue the worker.
EXPLANATION
The court explained that the workers’ comp system is intended to provide compensation for workers who are injured in the course of their employment; it’s not intended to protect workers from liability for injuries to third parties when the injuries occur outside the scope of their employment. Here, the worker’s conduct couldn’t be considered consistent with or reasonably incidental to his employment. When the worker entered the bar, he became engaged in conduct of a “purely personal nature” and became “sufficiently impaired” so that he couldn’t return to work, said the court. And for public policy reasons, added the court, “We should not shelter aberrant conduct which reasonably falls outside the course of employment.”
Ramey v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1997] A.J. No. 510, May 22, 1997
Loading ...
