The Supreme Court rules that falling in a hotel shower is not a work accident

He Supreme Court believes that falling in the hotel shower on a business trip is not accident at workbut that is the usual case.

The events took place on June 7, 2018. The employee was on a business trip to Tarragon to speak at a seminar, but that day, while at the hotel, she slipped and fell in the shower while preparing to participate in the said seminar meeting.

The woman received sick leave for a week due to an injury at work, and the costs of health care and subsidies were taken over by the insurer.

The community filed a lawsuit against the workers, the company, The main treasury of social security and National Institute for Social Securitywhich declared the event an accident at work, although the Madrid Social Court No. 33 rejected it, as did the Supreme Court of Justice later.

This Court held that “There is an unforeseeable and fortuitous event that occurred in the context of a work activity that the worker intended to begin immediately”.

And he added that “a stay in a hotel is an interruptive event or a time of rest […] but if the worker had to go to the place where the seminar was held, the reason why she fell in the shower was nothing else and only this last circumstance».

After that, the agreement turned to the Social Council of the Supreme Court, which now agreed with it, stating that the temporary prevention of the workers “has its origin in a common case”, which is why it annuls the judgments handed down so far.

The Supreme Court says that “a fall while taking a shower in a hotel contracted by the company for logistical purposes can be considered to have occurred with relevant opportunity that there was any factual circumstance that would indicate this,” but “no data was submitted to the procedure” that could support this situation.

Explain what there is no indication of an anomaly in the hotel facilities (slippery floor, lack of adequate lighting, etc.), nothing about the woman being affected by any circumstance (change of schedule, little time for rest, etc.) this might explain their haste in clearing operationsor any other psychophysical aspect (related to the mission) that affected the crash.

Therefore, it is specified that “the injury was suffered during the process of personal and intimate cleanliness, outside of working hours, without a greater work relationship than the exposed, outside of the potential cases that the law identifies as an injury at work”.