A worker who slipped on a wet log while walking his dog around a lake in Tasmania and broke his left thigh bone has won a workers’ compensation claim dispute.

Lawyers at Moray & Agnew say the case highlights that injuries sustained during non-work activities while employees are either on call, or away on location for work, can give rise to a liability for compensation - even though the required connection between the activity and the employment “can be tenuous”.

The injured man, who was employed as a relief area coordinator for the Hydro Electric Corporation, was required to live in employer’s accommodation at Tullah, about 55 kilometres from Cradle Mountain.

At the time of the injury he was on call and required to be available to perform work within 15 minutes of being contacted. He was paid $68.15 for each day he was on call, regardless of whether he was called out.

Hydro Tasmania did not limit activities performed by workers on call. They were free to spend time with family, play sport and so on as long as they could take a call, or call back quickly and leave for work soon after.

On a Friday morning in May 2018, the man was walking with his partner and their dog along the Tullah lakeside, noticed he was outside mobile phone reception range and decided to turn around as he was on call and had to be contactable. On the way back, he slipped and broke his femur.

The man’s claim for workers’ compensation was disputed on the basis the injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment. However, the Tasmanian Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal upheld his claim.

Although tenuous, there was a connection with the worker walking his dog and the employment, the Tribunal determined, with the daily payment indicating Hydro Tasmania induced or encouraged workers to be at the relevant place.

Walking the dog while available for duty and intentionally remaining in range for a possible call out was found to be within the scope of activity that the employer encouraged the worker to undertake. As such, the injury was found to have arisen in the course of employment.

The Tribunal referred to previous cases, one in which a worker who was away for work but injured during a non-work interval was compensated after the employer expressly encouraged the worker to spend their down time in a particular place.

In another instance, a ‘fly in, fly out’ worker was performing shift work in a remote location for two-week periods. While between shifts, he was assaulted by a colleague outside a tavern near to his accommodation, which was provided by his employer.

The court held that injury also occurred in the course of employment.

Click here to see the full ruling.