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.
