The high court determines that a negligent action of a reckless nature prevents the accident suffered by a worker from being determined as a work accident, as ruled in the ruling (rcud. 3749/2020) of the Supreme Court issued on July 4, 2023.

In this ruling, the determination of the contingency that applies in this accident is discussed between the worker's insurance company and the INSS. The Mutual Insurance Company maintains that it is a common contingency and the INSS maintains that we are facing a work accident “in itinere.”

The worker traveled to carry out his work duties from Albacete to Valencia. On the outward journey, the workers had left the car with which they traveled parked in an industrial estate located in front of the airport in order to avoid the high cost of using the airport parking lot.

Upon returning to take the vehicle, the three workers proceeded to cross the four traffic lanes that separate the airport, causing the actor to be run over.

The workers crossed the road in a place that was not authorized and where there was no direct lighting, without prejudice to the fact that there was indirect lighting from the light tower that illuminates the airport. Furthermore, they were not wearing reflective clothing and were carrying packages at the time they crossed.

The accident caused the worker a closed bimalleolar ankle fracture and finally the INSS agreed to a permanent total disability for his usual profession resulting from a work accident.

The reporting judge establishes that those in which the employee "has neglected the most basic diligence, precaution and caution, assuming an obvious and unnecessary risk that endangers his life, and which finally materializes in the form of an accident, cannot be classified as work accidents." It also indicates in the ruling that "These actions are those in which notoriously unnecessary and particularly serious risks are adopted, transcending the usual behavior of a person and showing disdain for the most basic rules of prudence,"

The ruling indicates that in a Supreme Court ruling dated July 16, 1985, reckless imprudence has been defined as "conduct in which the person responsible assumes notorious, superfluous and particularly serious risks that go beyond the usual behavior of people. It is conceived as a clear and evident manifestation of disregard for danger and the most basic precaution that is expected, such as the employee's actions in which, going beyond conventional behavior, he or she engages in an avoidable risk that places consciously endangering life or property.

Failed: The appeal for unification of doctrine filed by the Mutual Fund is upheld, thus declaring that it is a non-work accident.