According to the Supreme Court ruling 278/2023 of April 18, 2023, a fall in a hotel shower during a work trip can be considered a work accident.

This ruling revokes the decisions taken in the first and second instance that considered the opposite.

The case in question occurs when a Prematecnia SA worker traveled to Tarragona in June 2018 for work reasons to attend a training seminar. While showering at the hotel to attend the presentation, he slipped and fell. The Supreme Court ruling recognizes that a fall in the hotel shower can be a work accident, even if this is not the case, but emphasizes that Each case must be evaluated individually.

The worker in question was placed on medical leave due to a work accident from June 8 to the 22nd of that same month. The National Social Security Institute (INSS) determined that the leave was due to a work accident, but the company's mutual insurance company did not agree with the resolution and filed a demand for contingency determination. The Social Court No. 33 of Madrid dismissed the mutual company's lawsuit and confirmed the INSS decision, arguing that the fall in the hotel shower was an accident on mission, as established by a Supreme Court ruling on February 24, 2014. The judge in charge of the case argued that the fall occurred while the worker was getting ready to attend the event to which the company had sent her.

The Mutua, faced with its disagreement with the ruling, appealed to the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM), but its arguments did not convince the magistrates, thus dismissing the appeal presented. They claimed that it was an unforeseeable and fortuitous event, but the court considered that the fall at the hotel was a work accident while on mission and, therefore, was the responsibility of the Mutua.

The Mutua presented an appeal for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court as a last measure, and in this case, the high court agreed with them. The decision was based on the fact that, although the employee had been sent by her company to another city to provide services, there was no anomaly in the facilities of the hotel where she stayed. In other words, there was no slippery floor and no lack of adequate lighting.

This Supreme Court ruling distinguishes between a work accident and an accident during the work trip, and establishes that the company is only responsible for the former. In this case, the Mutual Fund did not have to pay compensation because the worker's accident did not occur in the performance of her duties.

The magistrates who analyzed the case determined that there was no factual data related to the worker's mission that could indicate that she was affected by any circumstance, such as a sudden change in schedules or a lack of time to rest that would cause her to have to clean up very quickly. Therefore, they considered that it was necessary for data or evidence to be present that would allow the accident to be understood as work-related. In this case, the injury suffered during a personal and intimate grooming process outside of work time was outside the contingencies that the General Social Security Law identifies as a work accident.

However, the ruling has indicated that this decision cannot be considered generalizable to all similar cases, but only to those in which the same circumstances occur. Therefore, each case must be studied individually.

Failed:uphold the appeal for unification of doctrine filed by the Mutual Fund, declare that the worker's temporary disability originates from a common contingency.