Borealis Power Company is subject to mandatory workers' compensation laws in the states in which it does business. Chad and Dex work for Borealis as part of a crew that travels to remote locations to repair downed power lines and other damaged

Question

equipment. At a distant site, Chad is injured in an accident that is entirely Dex's fault. Chad files a claim for workers' compensation. Should the claim be granted? What would be Borealis's best defense against it?

Answer 1

Chad's claim should probably be granted. Borealis's best defense in this situation, as in all workers' compensation cases, is that Chad's injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. That defense would not likely be successful here, however. Under workers' compensation laws, employers are strictly liable without regard to whether or not they are at fault. Even if the employer is not negligent, he or she is liable if an employee's injury arose out of and in the course of employment. "Liability" in this context means that an injured employee is entitled to workers' compensation benefits for his or her injury. An injury must be work-related, arising out of activity that is normal for the kind of job involved. "In the course of employment" means that the employee was either at work or performing work at a different location. That a co-worker caused an injury to an employee does not block the employee's recovery of workers' compensation benefits. Also, although an employee is not covered while driving to work from home, the employee is covered while performing a work-related service at an off-site location.