Presumably this decision is based on the fact that it was a job related 'trip' to somewhere other than her home location, and the accommodation etc was paid for by her employer.
Further, if the 'trip' was compulsory then I can see how the employer could be held responsible for accidents in the provided accommodation, as that accommodation was an integral part of the whole trip and thus the 'workplace'.
This sort of information is missing from the article, but if that is the basis for the decision, then employers will be very careful in future to NOT provide anything outside of the actual work time, leaving the employees the responsibility of arranging their own accommodation and other necessary services while on such a trip ..... and being very clear that outside of the required attendance at whatever employment-related functions that have been arranged, the employees will not be 'at work'.
I believe this decision will have a negative effect generally - on convenience ...... the employees having to make their own arrangements, and the employers needing to ensure they do not in any way have anything to do with the employees time or arrangements outside of the specified work times.
In truth, I cannot see the logic in holding the employer responsible for an accidental injury sustained in accommodation supplied (essentially) by a sub-contractor.
I would have thought that the sub-contractor's insurance would be the place for such a claim.
It does appear to be a weird decision on the face of it, but because the employee was in the employer's care and under arrangements supplied by the employer, then the employers involvement in responsibility is, I suppose, reasonable.
If you send a kid to camp, are the camp organisers responsible in the case of an accident?
It would appear that the employer is in the place of the organiser of the trip .....
