It has long been the law in Illinois that an employee’s negligence or contributory negligence is not a bar to his/her recovery under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. Saunders v. Industrial Commission, 189 Ill. 2d 623, 629-30 (2000). This rule has now been expanded to cover even blatant violations of company safety rules.
For an injury to be held compensable under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, the injury complained of “must be one arising out of and in the course of employment.” 820 ILCS 305/2 (2002). “An injury is said to arise out of one’s employment if its origin is in some risk or connected with or incident to the employment, so that there is a casual connection between the employment and the injury.” Parro v. Indistrial Commission, 167 Ill. 2d 385, 397 (1995). According to the recent First District Appellate Court case of J.S. Masonry, Inc. v. The Industrial Commission, et al., even a violation of an employer’s safety rule will not automatically take the employee out of the sphere of his/her employment. 369 Ill. App. 3d 591 (1st Dist. 2007).
In J.S. Masonry, Petitioner was working on a scaffold when he tripped over a brick and then onto a horizontal rail which was serving as a safety gate. J.S. Masonry, 369 Ill. App. 3d at 592. The safety gate then gave way, sending Petitioner falling twelve feet to the ground. Id. Petitioner’s employer presented witnesses at the initial arbitration hearing who testified that the Petitioner was told earlier that morning to fasten the safety gate with a pin. Id. at 594. Moreover, the owner of the company who employed the Petitioner testified that he had a second conversation with Petitioner prior to the accident at which time he reminded the Petitioner to pin the safety gate. Id. at 594
At the conclusion of the initial arbitration hearing, the arbitrator denied the Petitioner’s benefits and found that he “failed to prove that he sustained accidental injuries. . . arising out of his employment because the claimant committed an act in violation of the company’s safety rules which took him out of the scope of his employment.” J.S. Masonry, 369 Ill. App. 3d at 595. Petitioner appealed this ruling and the Industrial Commission reversed, finding that: “regardless of whether or not the Company had a safety rule and/or the [Petitioner] violated the Company safety rule, the [Petitioner] sustained an accidental injury. . . arising out of an in the course of his employment.” Id.
In essence, the Industrial Commission completely rejected the safety violation defense. This matter was then appealed to the Circuit Court of Cook County and the First District Appellate Court both of which affirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission.
In affirming the Industrial Commission’s ruling, the First District Appellate Court in J.S. Masonry cited to the 1922 Illinois Supreme Court decision of Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission, which held that:
it does not matter in the slightest degree how many orders the employee disobeys or how bad his conduct may have been if he was still acting in the sphere of his employment and in the course of it the accident arose out of it.
J.S. Masonry, 369 Ill. App. 3d at 595; citing Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission, 302 Ill. 401, 406 (1922).
Thus the First District Appellate Court held that:
the decisive issue is whether the employee was, at the time of the accident, violating a rule while still in the scope of his employment, or whether the alleged rule violation took him/her outside its sphere.
J.S. Masonry, 369 Ill. App. 3d at 595.
In affirming the Industrial Commission’s decision, the Court pointed to the fact that (1) the Petitioner was performing his employment duties, (2) in a area which he was not forbidden to enter and (3) he was not engaged in an activity which was unauthorized by his employer. As a result of the aforementioned, the Court held that “[a]lthough he may have been performing his duties in a negligent manner, the claimant was doing exactly the thing he was employed to do. Id. at 595.
Based on this recent ruling, it is evident that a violation of a safety rule is only a defense if the Petitioner is engaging in activities which are not required by his employment. Such a narrow exception to the general rule will make it even more difficult for employers to avoid liability in workers’ compensation matters when employees negligently perform their employment tasks and even go so far as violate known safety rules.
* * *
Kevin Casey, an associate in our Chicago office, concentrates his practice in general litigation. Mr. Casey is currently handling claims involving premises liability, construction litigation, and workers compensation. He also has extensive experience handling matters involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and equine liability matters.
If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact Kevin at kcasey@querrey.com or via 312-540-7052. If you have questions regarding Querrey & Harrow’s workmen’s compensation defense practice, please contact Workers’ Compensation practice group chair Michael Stillman at mstillman@querrey.com or via 815-726-8012.
