BCM proves collapsing chair does not put petitioner at an increased risk

Michael K. Brandow tried Good v. City of Bloomington, No. 04 WC 52377, before Arbitrator Falcioni in Bloomington, Illinois. Mr. Brandow successfully secured a no accident decision by arguing that the petitioner was not exposed to any greater risk than the general public in the incident which caused her injuries.

Petitioner alleged that she was injured on July 22, 2004, when a chair she was sitting in broke causing her to fall injuring her back. Petitioner worked as a meter maid for the City of Bloomington. As a meter maid she argued she should be considered a traveling employee and, therefore, any accident which occurred while on duty would be deemed to be compensable. She pointed out that she had a pager with her at all times and was constantly on call.

Petitioner testified that she had worked for the City for six years as a meter maid. As a meter maid she would drive a buggy to do her route and check on parking situations. She worked a couple of hours and then she decided to take a break. She went into a restaurant and sat on a chair to get a cup of coffee. When she leaned back the chair cracked and broke and she fell backwards injuring herself.

There was no dispute that the accident occurred the way the petitioner claimed in this matter.

Other witnesses testified that it was common practice of the employees of the City of Bloomington that worked in the traffic department to take breaks in restaurants.

The City of Bloomington defended this action on the theory that the petitioner’s activities did not place her at an increased risk beyond what the general public was exposed to; specifically that the restaurant where the petitioner was injured was open to the general public. It was not owned or controlled by the City. The chair itself was available to the general public and was not reserved for employees. Therefore, the Arbitrator found that there was no increased risk beyond that to which the general public would be exposed to in the activity of sitting in a chair in a public restaurant while on a break.

On that basis, the decision was rendered in favor of the employer. It should also be noted that the Arbitrator did not find that the petitioner was considered a traveling employee as was argued by the petitioner.