Be cautious, Google Maps may also help you show in courtroom that an accident was at work | My Rights | Economy | EUROtoday

It is a typical area of interest for friction and conflicts: when is an accident at work? And particularly, methods to persuade a decide that an accident occurred, precisely, on the way in which to or from work? This is a matter that fuels quite a few discussions within the courts. However, a current ruling has opened the door to utilizing a widely known software to make clear whether or not an accident is work-related or not: Google Maps.

It is a judicial decision, from the Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, that opens this path. In the ruling, which might be consulted right here, the island courtroom has accepted as proof the screenshots of the well-known software supplied by the employee, employed in a lodge in Tenerife, to conclude that the accident (she left the street after doing aquaplanning) occurred on the way in which to work, and never of their free time, because the mutual insurance coverage firm and its bosses defended.

As the info of the case present, the worker suffered the accident with the automobile at 10:20 within the morning within the municipality of Adeje, on the island of Tenerife. The chronology of the occasions is essential on this case, because the day began at 12:00whereas the length of the journey, based on Google Maps, is quarter-hour between the door of your own home and your office.

This is among the arguments that the corporate makes use of to defend that the employee was not on her strategy to her job, however relatively on different duties. The employers argue, initially, that the time of the accident, an hour and a half earlier than the beginning of the day, disrupts the work connection. Secondly, the lodge firm reveals that the accident It didn't take the quickest path to work., however in one other manner. Two components that, in brief, show that the employee's vacation spot was not the job when she went off the street.

Location and time

However, the Canarian courtroom doesn’t purchase this model. In communion with the decide and with the Social Security Institute, he dismantles this thesis for a number of causes. To start with, “using the same Google Maps application used by the mutual insurance company, it turns out that between the plaintiff's home and her workplace, at the Gran Tacande Hotel, there are just under 9 kilometers by road,” the authors state. judges. But, they add, though the accident didn’t happen “on the quickest route” between the 2 factors, the screenshots from the map device present that it did happen on the “shortest” path. That is, the employee didn’t deviate from a route that may be thought of regular.

Regarding the discover interval – an hour and a half –, the magistrates recall that it isn’t uncommon for workers to go to their office earlier than the beginning time of the day. Several circumstances may justify this provision, for instance, “the need to change clothes and put on the uniform” or “the need to find parking.”

Precisely, the Canarian TSJ as soon as once more makes use of the well-known mapping software to agree with the employee. “From what can be seen on Google Maps,” she factors out, “the block where the work center is located has few or no free parking spaces, which forces us to search for parking in more distant places.” . It can also be “a tourist and commercial area with a large influx of vehicles.” Therefore, “it is not unreasonable” to suppose that the employee I needed to park distant after which stroll for some time to the place of employment.

Additionally, the magistrates blame the corporate and the mutual not having supplied proof that present that the day begins at twelve. Well, though that is their frequent schedule, the judges do not forget that extraordinary circumstances could come up that might have defined an early entry (for instance, working additional time). “That the defendant worker left her home an hour and a half before the time she was supposed to start her day is not so wildly anticipated.”

Flexible idea

Furthermore, the magistrates do not forget that the foundations of office accidents on the way in which to work are usually not written in stone. In truth, the courts permit some flexibility in these mishaps. To give an instance, the Supreme Court, in a judicial precedent, accepted as an accident on the street (due to this fact, as work) that of a employee who spent lower than an hour “to buy some yogurt at a nearby supermarket.” We should not neglect that folks observe affordable and “usual patterns of coexistence” and this will clarify sure detours or disparate schedules on the way in which to work.

And, to complete, the judges convey up the 4 necessities to evaluate that an accident is on the street: that the aim of the journey is to achieve the place; that it happens on a “usual and normal” route; that it happens “in a reasonable time” and {that a} frequent technique of transportation is used. The 4 necessities are met within the case of the lodge operator.

Follow all the knowledge Economy y Business in Facebook y Xor in our publication semanal