Home office: going to the toilet not an occupational accident

Especially in IT law or marketing agencies and similar companies, home office is quite popular.

But until something like a right to a home office actually comes about, there are probably still a few things that need to be clarified on other fronts. This is because social courts are becoming increasingly strict when it comes to the question of when an occupational accident exists and therefore the statutory accident insurance, for which every employee pays, must step in.

The Munich Social Court has now ruled that the assessment is likely to be more difficult in the home office. In any case, going to the toilet was not an occupational accident.

The plaintiff here had fallen on the stairs on his way from the restroom to his home office workstation and sustained a fracture of his left foot. Due to a disease of epilepsy, he was even 100% tied to his home office job and could no longer perform his former job in the field. The G

The court on this:

An occupational accident therefore requires that the injured person has fulfilled the legal facts of an insured activity by performing an activity prior to the accident event in question and is therefore an insured person (internal or factual connection).

and further

An […] insured activity as an employee exists if an injured person, in order to fulfill a legal relationship established by him, in particular an employment relationship, performs his own activity in integration into the enterprise of another for the purpose that the results of their performance are of direct benefit or disadvantage to the latter and not to himself. Objectively, it depends on the integration of the actions of the injured party into the company of another party and subjectively on the intention, which is at least also directed towards this, that the own activity should bring direct advantages for the company of the other party. Employment within the meaning of § 2 para. 1 No. 1 SGB VII is therefore exercised if the performance at least initiates and is directed towards either fulfilling one’s own objectively existing main or secondary duty from the underlying legal relationship, or the injured person performs an objectively not owed action in order to fulfill a supposed duty from the legal relationship, provided that he could assume, according to the particular circumstances of their employment at the time of the performance, that he was subject to such a duty, or he exercises company-related rights from the legal relationship.

The court did not consider these circumstances to be against. As an employee, it’s important to keep this in mind if you regularly take advantage of home offices. The employer or the employee may have to take out additional accident insurance.

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.