A recent labour court ruled that a bicycle trip accident was classified as a work-related accident.
The employee, who regularly commuted 44 kilometers by bicycle to and from his workplace, suffered a collision on his way home, resulting in an clavicle fracture that prevented him from working. This occurred despite the fact that the extended commute was obviously a personal choice motivated by excise and training considerations. The trip typically took the employee an hour and forty minutes.
The court’s decision took into account several factors, including the appropriateness of the bicycle as a means of transportation under the circumstances. It was noted that the accident occurred on a normal route during a suitable time of day, suggesting that the bicycle was a reasonable mode of transport given the lack of practical public transport options and the employee’s preference for cycling for health and environmental reasons.
This case, which remains subject to a formal appeal to a higher court, underscores the general legal and social recognition of non-conventional commuting methods as valid under work-related accident claims, provided they meet certain criteria of regularity and suitability in relation to the job and working conditions. This is an evolving area of employment law.
From the employer’s perspective, the consequence of such a ruling is that the employer may be financially responsible for the higher costs of a work related accident. In this particular case the extra costs would not be particularly significant as the disability would not have lasted more than a month or so, but it is not unusual for employees being entitled to up 18 months of their normal salary, a significant percentage of which is not reimbursed by the social security system.
