Dog-sitting council worker wins compensation over work-from-home pet fence injury

A council employee who tripped over a pet fence while working from home has won a workers compensation case.

A South Australian council employee who was injured after tripping over a pet fence while working from home has won a workers compensation case.

The City of Charles Sturt asset officer was working from home on September 19, 2022 when she tripped and fell over the 60-centimetre-high metal fence, injuring her right knee and arm.

She had installed the fence previous day in the doorway of her home office as she was looking after a colleague’s dog, and wanted to keep the puppy away from her pet rabbit.

After getting up to make a coffee some time between 9am and 9.30am, she went to step over the fence but caught her foot, causing her to lose balance and fall forward, landing heavily on her knee and right side.

She was taken by ambulance to the Royal Adelaide Hospital with fracture to her right humerus. She reported ongoing issues with her right knee after the fall, including shooting pain and numbness.

The worker was pet-sitting for a colleague at the time. Picture: iStock

The South Australian Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme rejected her claim the following month, saying it was not satisfied her employment was a significant contributing cause of her injuries.

The insurer maintained that the erection of the pet fence across the walkway, creating a “clear and unusual hazard”, without the council’s direction or approval, meant the injury was not caused by her employment.

The worker appealed to the South Australian Employment Court, which last week ruled in her favour.

Magistrate Jodie Carrel rejected the insurer’s argument, finding that “in the context of a statutory compensation scheme not predicated on the notion of fault, the fact [she] created the workplace hazard the day prior, and unbeknown to the council, does not preclude a finding that it is an employment-related cause”.

“This is particularly so, given the extent of [her] autonomy in managing her own health and safety while working from home,” she added.

The court heard that the woman had been working for the council since 2012 and her duties were mainly office-based, with permission to work-from-home from time to time.

During Covid, she had advised the council she was struggling to work from home for long periods and requested to return to the office four days per week in December 2021.

She provided the court with a screenshot of a council video about flexible working arrangements, which included encouragement to “take regular breaks”, “get out in the sunshine” and “enjoy time with the dog”.

She tripped over a 60-centimetre pet fence she had installed the previous day. Picture: iStock

Magistrate Carrel said while there was “some evidence that [she] was also going to check on the puppy”, she was “satisfied on [her] evidence that she was taking an authorised paid coffee break”.

The court heard that the council’s working from home arrangements required employees to complete a working from home safety checklist, but that she had not completed it at the time of the injury.

Magistrate Carrel said the checklist demonstrated the council’s “attempts to guard against work health and safety risks arising from home-working, notwithstanding the practical difficulties of assessing such risks”.

“However, in all other respects, the council had effectively abrogated its responsibilities for the provision and maintenance of a safe working environment when working from home to [the employee],” she said.

“Having done so, in my view, the suggestion that the council needed to contemplate the specific hazard in her home causing the fall is too high a bar for compensability.”

With respect to her injuries, the woman’s arm fracture was not in dispute and the court found she had suffered bruising to her knee, which had aggravated pre-existing degenerative changes.

However Magistrate Carrel added that “inconsistencies in the history provided” by the woman with respect to her right knee symptoms, “the limited detail provided by her in evidence and limited recall … cast sufficient doubt in the reliability of her evidence that I am not persuaded that the continuing symptoms” were caused by the fall.

A hearing on compensation will be held at a later date.

The City of Charles Sturt has been contacted for comment.

[e-mail]