The Supreme Court has unified doctrine establishing that a fall on the way to the bar to have a snack during working hours is a work accident. The entity argues that "it must be understood as a normal activity of working life", which would not have occurred, if they had not been working.
The case studied by the magistrates of the Social Chamber dates back to November 2016, when a woman "suffered a fall when she was going from her workplace to a bar to have a snack", around 6:15 p.m. The fall, which interrupted a 60-meter journey, caused him temporary disability for which a file was later opened, in which it was declared that the accident was work-related and that the responsibility lay with the corresponding mutual, Asepeyo.
The mutual, dissatisfied, took the case to the courts so that the disability "derived from a non-work accident" could be considered. The Social Court Number 1 of Malaga dismissed the claim and agreed that "the accident took place at work, in the half-hour snack that is classified as working time by the collective agreement." The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia confirmed the decision.
The mutual appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the presumption of an accident at work requires that it occur in the place and time of work, but not on the street when the worker is not entrusted with any activity. With the appeal, she asked that doctrine be unified because, in her opinion, the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias had issued a sentence in which another conclusion was reached in a similar case, and they were "contradictory."
In the sentence, the Supreme Court understands that the decision of the Andalusian TSJ adheres to the "correct doctrine". The magistrates have explained that "the circumstances surrounding the case show that the accident occurred on the occasion of work, as it occurred during the working time available to the employee to regain her strength, a purpose that is pursued with the break whose time is precisely described like work".
In the resolution, for which Judge María Luz García Paredes was the rapporteur, the court stressed that the fact that the place where the accident occurred was not exactly the place of his professional activity does not alter "the relationship with the job". "Their departure from the center (...) must be understood as a normal activity of working life that, if they were not providing services, would not have occurred."
