CARSON CITY, Nev. (Legal Newsline) - The family of a man who died riding an ATV during downtime on a work trip is entitled to Workers' Compensation benefits.
The Nevada Supreme Court reached that conclusion July 13 in proceedings related to the death of Jason Buma. The court said it was wrong for an appeals officer to require a measure of "foreseeability" on the part of the employer while applying the state's "traveling employee rule."
That rule allows an employee injured on work-related travel to recover benefits that aren't directly work-related.
Buma died in Texas on a work trip at the ranch of a friend and co-worker in 2015. They were riding ATVs after finishing preparation for a conference the next day.
"Here, the appeals officer found that Jason's ATV ride was not 'a material deviation in time or space from the place where Jason was staying,'" the court found.
"The appeals officer also acknowledged that Jason was tending 'reasonably' to his personal comfort needs while riding the ATV because he was staying at his co-worker's ranch and because transportation via ATV was an ideal means of traversing the 'sprawling' ranch.
"However, nowhere in the appeals officer's decision does the officer explain how riding the ATV amounted to Jason pursuing strictly personal amusement ventures or, in other words, how ATV riding was a distinct departure on a personal errand."
A 2019 trip to the Supreme Court in the Buma family's case recognized the "traveling employee rule" to cover injuries that occur on work trips as a result of "eating, sleeping and ministering to personal needs away from home."
When the case was sent back to the Workers' Comp appeals officer, the officer instituted a requirement for benefits to be owed there needed to be a foreseeability of injury that the employer ignored.
But there is no such foreseeability requirement, the Supreme Court ruled.
"Rather, as noted, Buma held that distinct departures 'tend to involve a personally motivated activity that takes the traveling employee on a material deviation in time or space from carrying out the trip's employment-related activities,'" the court said.
"Buma is not unique in omitting a foreseeability element. In that respect, Illinois appears to be in the distinct minority of jurisdictions in imposing a 'foreseeability' element with respect to its traveling employee/distinct departure analysis."