In a recent ruling published this Monday but dated February 9, the Supreme Court clarified a longstanding doctrine about how work related accidents are classified. The decision confirms that a fall occurring during an employee break outside the workplace can still be treated as a work accident and may receive the associated protections. The court described such incidents as part of the category on the way to or from work, also known as the on the road classification. This stance aligns with Spain’s 2022 data showing a total of 79,551 injuries recorded as on the road incidents that led to medical leave.
The Malaga case reached the court with the worker using a scheduled break to unwind and later sustaining a fall about 60 meters from the workplace near a bar. The ruling favored the employee, establishing eligibility for temporary disability benefits. The decision also rejects claims from the mutual insurer, which had argued that social security or other entities should bear some of the leave costs. The court asserted that the incident bears a direct link to the employment relationship, even though it occurred during a lunch break and away from the work site itself.
The question of what counts as a work accident and what does not remains subject to interpretation across the judiciary. The Supreme Court has unified its approach to pauses within the workday. The break commonly referred to as the sandwich break is recognized as working time because it serves the purpose of rest and recovery during the shift. Even when workers are not actively performing tasks, the period is considered part of the workday to refresh and prepare for continued duties. This means that events occurring during the break can be evaluated as work related, which can affect entitlements to compensation and immediate interventions through the social security system. The aim is to ensure that workers receive timely care and support during the period allocated for rest, while maintaining a clear connection to the employment relationship that governs those rights.
Doctrine unification
The insurer Asepeyo had argued that a fall could not be classified as a work accident because it happened outside the workplace and during a break. The court disagreed, holding that there is a direct relationship between the accident and the worker’s employment duties, even when the incident occurs during a break within the working day. The justices likened the situation to an employee who must return to a vehicle in the parking area to retrieve an item and slips on the way, requiring medical attention. Earlier, in April 2021, the same court had already ruled that a fall in a cafeteria during a break qualifies as an on the road accident. The case demonstrates that the surrounding facts indicate the incident was work related, occurring within the portion of the day set aside for rest that is connected to the objective of maintaining productive service. The social court judges observed that the incident would not happen if the worker did not provide the services, reinforcing the link between the accident and the work activity. This leads to a broader interpretation of everyday life activities as part of the normal working life when they occur within the period designated for work related rest and recuperation.