In the case of Hydro Electric Corporation v Nazar [2022] TASSC 37 a worker was at home but ‘on call’. Although the worker was at home, the employer was paying him an ‘on-call’ allowance, he was living in a company house, he was not allowed to be more than 15 minutes away from the house and he had to be in a fit and well rested and be able to drive and respond to calls outs. Other than that the employer did not restrict what the worker could do.
The accident
While ‘on call’ the worker took his dog for a walk to a local beach. He was always within 15 minutes of being able to get back to the house to respond to any calls. During the walk he climbed over a log and slipped and suffered injuries. He claimed workers compensation benefits on the basis that he was at work at the time that he was injured.
The employer disputed the claim and the dispute went to the State Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed that the worker was sufficiently ‘at work’ such that the accident and the injuries happened during the course of his employment. The worker won his case.
The appeal
The employer appealed the Tribunal decision. The Supreme Court looked at the case and made a number of findings:
- The first thing is that just because a worker has an accident at a place where the employer has sent him, that does not automatically mean that the accident happened because of the employment. In other words, just because you got injured at a place where you are at because of your work, does not automatically give rise to a claim. You need more – you need to prove a connection between your injury and your work duties. The workers compensation tribunal needs to find out what were you doing that caused your injury, and how that was part of your work duties. In this case his injuries were caused by walking his dog and stepping on a log. The Judge decided that that was not work related and the worker lost his case.
- Having decided that the activity that caused the injury was not a work activity, nevertheless there is a long line of cases that support claims where workers are injured while doing non-work activities for so long as the worker can prove that the worker was encouraged or induced to participate in that activity. For example, if the employer had encouraged the worker to walk his dog he may still have a good claim. The Judge decided that there was nothing that the employer had done that either encouraged or induced the worker to walk his dog and therefore his claim failed.
Lessons
The lesson is that if you are injured while at home but “on call” that you may still have a claim if you can prove that your accident and your injury happened while doing something that was related to your duties. For example, if you are required to keep tools and equipment in a good state of repair, and you are injured while cleaning or maintaining tools while “on call”, then there might be a strong enough link between your activities and your work to be able to make a claim. If not, you may still have a claim if you are able to prove that you were injured while engaged in an activity that your employer had encouraged or induced you to participate in. For example if while “on call” your employer arranged a sight seeing trip, and encouraged you to attend, and you were injured while on the trip, then you may be able to make a claim.
The bottom line: every accident is different. If you are injured in an accident you should get good legal advice.
