Court of Appeal compensated a worker and a New Mexico resident because he broke his hand while on a job errand. It is a surprise because compensation is only given by a company when they are injured while working not walking. The accident has to happen when operating a machine or task. The device the worker is operating has to be faulty and not due to the workers’ negligence.
When the worker is under the influence of alcohol or drug they are not compensated. Any sign of negligence will result in the judge ruling in favour of the company. When the worker is not working or idle or not active and an accident happens the worker cannot claim compensation. The accident is argued that the worker was not careful and caused thyself harm.
The company cannot be liable for any damages or pay any money due to the loss of income caused by accident. The New Mexico court overturned those laws by ruling on the case. Even though there were no risky circumstances relating to work operations.
The Court of Appeal overturned the ruling of the intel worker that ruled he cannot be compensated. The worker broke his arm while walking in the office hallway. He tripped and fell in the staircase when he was heading to the other companies building.
Thought the hallway was unobstructed and he was not carrying any equipment he broke his right arm. The first judge ruled that the company was not liable for the accident. The worker could not be compensated concerning money. The judge ruled in favor of the company.
The worker appealed his case to the court of appeal to challenge the ruling. The ruling to him was unfair because he broke his arm in the company’s premises. The argument was that if he did not have to walk a long distance to the other building working site, the accident could not have occurred.
The employee told the court of appeal his boss had sent him to the other building that is why he happened to be in the hallway. If he was not in the hall at that moment, he could not have broken his arm.
The accident caused him to incur medical bills, stress, and loss of income. That is the reason he saw it unfair for the first judge to rule against him. The Court of Appeal ruled in his favour, and that of his personal injury solicitor, because the accident was job-related and happened under workplace conditions.