Breaking News Bar
updated: 1/8/2014 7:53 AM

Legislation would nix pay for non-work accidents

hello
Success - Article sent! close
 
Associated Press

SPRINGFIELD -- Lawmakers will consider legislation this spring that aims to clarify who is responsible for injuries sustained in a traffic accident on the way to work.

Lee Enterprises Newspapers in Illinois reported Tuesday that Sen. Kyle McCarter, a Lebanon Republican, has introduced a measure that exempts an employer from paying for injuries if the worker is not traveling specifically for work purposes.

Order Reprint Print Article
 
Interested in reusing this article?
Custom reprints are a powerful and strategic way to share your article with customers, employees and prospects.
The YGS Group provides digital and printed reprint services for Daily Herald. Complete the form to the right and a reprint consultant will contact you to discuss how you can reuse this article.
Need more information about reprints? Visit our Reprints Section for more details.

Contact information ( * required )

Success - request sent close

"It makes practical sense," McCarter said. "If the employer is not responsible for an accident, why would you make him pay?"

McCarter's legislation stipulates that an injured worker could receive compensation only "if the injury arises out of and in the course of employment while he or she is actively engaged in the duties of employment."

The initiative mirrors a recent Supreme Court decision. In that case, a Springfield pipefitter, Gerald Daugherty, took a temporary job at a power plant in Rock Island County, near the Quad Cities. Instead of commuting 200 miles from his home, Daugherty rented a motel room.

One day as he and a co-worker drove to work, the car in which they were riding hit a patch of ice and crashed and Daugherty was severely injured.

The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, which decides disputes over payment for workplace injuries, declared Daugherty would receive employer compensation.

But the Supreme Court decided in December that Daugherty made a personal decision to take the job with an understanding of the commute involved -- and therefore was not traveling for work.

The court ruled on the case 6-1 with Justice Thomas Kilbride dissenting. He decided Daugherty should have been considered a "traveling employee" because the job at the power plant was temporary.

McCarter's proposal was introduced in November, before the Supreme Court ruling. It has not been assigned to a Senate committee for action.

Share this page
Comments ()
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the X in the upper right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.