Industrial workers involved in any serious accident on the job must first receive immediate and necessary medical care as soon as possible after the injuries have been sustained. Employers should have safety plans in place for these emergencies, where on-site help can be provided while first responders are alerted and arrive for professional treatment and transport as necessary. Sadly, all too often, the employer’s first impressions of the accident scene and the circumstances surrounding the incident will soon veer from concern for the injured accident victim to determining legal responsibility for what has happened. Will the company be liable?
For workers in our part of the country, work accidents may have legal implications under federal law as well as state statutes or common law, all as defined by the jurisdiction where the worker was hurt.
For more, read: The Importance of Accident Site Location for Personal Injury Claims in Indiana and Illinois; The Jones Act vs. the Longshoreman and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for Maritime Workers; and Work Injuries and On-the-Job Accidents in Indiana and Illinois With Federal Law Protections: FELA, Jones Act, LHWCA, DBA.
Investigations After the Accident: Different Determinations
Depending upon the law that covers the industrial worker’s injury claims, as well as that of the worker’s loved ones, certain questions must be answered and resolved. The insurance carrier for the worker’s employer may be one of the first to complete these investigations and make these determinations, but they are not conclusive. In many instances, there may be other companies with their own carriers who have conflicting findings.
Official safety agency investigations, such as those performed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) or the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) may come to their own conclusions. Sometimes, even law enforcement may be involved to file police reports and medical examiner opinions may be pertinent and vital. And, finally, the worker-victim may have advocates investigating and researching legal claims with conclusions that may, or may not, jive with any one or more of the former findings. For more, read Workplace Safety and OSHA Regulations in Indiana and Illinois.
The ultimate determination regarding the law that covers the worker’s claims may not be found with any of these investigators. There will be times that the injury victim is forced to go to court and ask for a judicial determination of things like:
- The law that applies to the case
- If worker’s compensation coverage applies to the case
- If the employer is liable for the injuries sustained by the victim
- If other companies or legal entities are liable for the accident and resulting injuries.
This will be true in any industrial accident where a worker is hurt on the job. It is also true in the event that a visitor or guest (or customer, client, salesperson, independent contractor, etc.) is hurt on the site.
Course and Scope of Employment
One of the primary issues to be resolved after any work injury is whether or not the worker was in the “course and scope of employment” at the time of the accident. This phrase may have slightly different legal interpretations, depending upon the applicable statutes and regulations that apply to the case.
The importance of “course and scope of employment” permeates through both personal injury lawsuits and workers’ compensation claims. Generally speaking, it means all the things that the worker does, or is reasonably expected to do, as part of the job for which they were hired. The law may include the stipulation that the work being done was either assigned to the worker by the employer, or that it was something within the employer’s control. (See, e.g., Burton v. Benner, 140 N.E.3d 848 (Ind. 2020).)
When an accident happens, it may be self-evident that the worker was on task at the time of injury. A roofer who falls from a rooftop on a residential construction site, for instance. Or a warehouse worker who is hit by a forklift in a vehicular accident on the warehouse floor while stacking boxes.
However, in other scenarios, there may be confusion regarding whether or not the worker was in the “course and scope of employment” at the time of the incident. If an exception applies, then the legal avenues for the injured accident victim may change. Workers’ compensation claims may be denied and must be appealed. Lawsuits based upon things like negligence, premises liability, defective products, or malpractice may be involved.
Going and Coming
A well-recognized exception to a worker being within the “course and scope of employment” happens in many jurisdictions when that worker is “going and coming” to work. As a general rule, employees are not within the course and scope of employment when they are driving (or commuting) to the job or going home after their shift is over.
The rationale here is that the employee is not performing any kind of service to the employer during the commute going to and from work, so is not “employed” at that time. Another argument: the employer has no control over what happens in these commutes so cannot have a legal duty of care for any injuries that are sustained here.
There are boundaries to this exception, of course. One example is when the employee was driving his vehicle at the time of the accident, even if that worker was going to or coming from home to the worksite. The employer is generally not responsible here. However, if the employer asked the worker to drive, or if the employer pays for the worker’s time (as compared to reimbursement for travel expenses), then it is usually considered to be a part of the scope of employment. The employer has legal duties of care and safety that apply.
Frolic and Detour
Another exception that is found in several jurisdictions is when the worker is on the job, but briefly wanders outside the course and scope of employment, which is called a “frolic” or “detour.” In these situations, the employee remains within the course and scope of employment if he “detours” or while acting on task, does something outside his job description.
If the employee “frolics,” then he is outside the course and scope of employment. This happens when the worker deviates from work tasks to do something for personal benefit or enjoyment. Frolics are not within the course and scope of employment and the employer may deny legal liability for accidents that occur during this time period. See, Sykes, Alan O. “The boundaries of vicarious liability: An economic analysis of the scope of employment rule and related legal doctrines.” Harvard Law Review 101.3 (1988): 563-609.
Worker Accidents: Employer Liability and Course and Scope of Employment
Industrial workers in Indiana and Illinois are asked each day to work a shift where they are faced with some of the greatest hazards any employee can face in this country. Construction workers; warehouse workers; commercial truckers; miners; and railroaders bravely undertake tasks that come with perils that can kill or cause permanent harm.
These workers must rely upon the legal duties of safety and care that are imposed upon employers, and others with possession, custody, or control of aspects of the worksite. When those duties are breached though accident or intentional disregard, then people can die or suffer catastrophic injuries. Laws exist to protect these accident victims but not all work accidents in Indiana and Illinois will be covered by the same laws. Some will be covered by federal law; some by state statute; and others by workers’ compensation systems set up to force employers to buy insurance policies to cover workers who are harmed on the job.
Severe work injuries can be emotionally, physically, and financially devastating to the worker and their loved ones. Sadly, these workers must also undertake the responsibility of making sure they receive justice after an on-the-job accident. Advocates can help worker-victims with complex legal issues such as “course and scope of employment” controversies, especially when the employer (or their carrier) has decided that the worker was not “on the job” at the time of the accident.
For more, read:
- Workers Beware: BLS Reports Highest US Worker Death Rate in 5 Years
- Workers’ Compensation and Third-Party Claims for On-the-Job Accidents
- The Two Main Differences Between Workers Compensation and Personal Injury Claims for Accident Victims in Indiana and Illinois
- Multiple Employers on the Construction Site: Who Is Liable For Construction Worker Accidents?
- Premises Liability and Workplace Accidents: Third Party Injury Claims.
Our workers deserve to be respected and protected on the job. All too often, employers focus on profits, avoid safety responsibilities, and try to evade liability by asserting “course and scope” defenses, all to the detriment of the injured employee. There are laws that can help worker-victims in these situations. Please be careful out there!
