Florida
Florida: Clarification on Test to Determine Work-Related Injury
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in FL |
EFFECTIVE JUL 9, 2026 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
In Bouayad v. Normandy Insurance Company, the Florida Supreme Court defined when an employee is injured in the course of work. It was faced with the question: When a third-party tortfeasor assaults an employee who is in the course and scope of employment, can the resulting injuries be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law? The answer depends on whether there is a connection to the employee’s job and job environment.
Here, the general manager of a car rental kiosk at a hotel was shot multiple times by an unidentified assailant around midnight while walking an unlit outdoor pathway between his work kiosk and an office where he dropped off cash and paperwork at the end of his shift. The employee sought workers’ compensation benefits, arguing his injuries were connected to his job, while the insurance carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the shooting stemmed from a personal dispute rather than anything work-related. A judge initially awarded the employee benefits, finding that his job duties—including recently firing employees for theft and drug use—likely made him a target, and that the dark, isolated walkway increased his risk of being attacked while at work.
That ruling was reversed by Florida’s First District Court of Appeal, which took a narrow view of the law: it reasoned that the employee’s only “work” at the moment of the shooting was the simple act of walking, and since walking itself didn’t cause the gunshot wounds, the injury wasn’t legally connected to his job. Under this reasoning, the appeals court essentially said that because a third party (the shooter) was the direct cause of the injury, it could not be considered work-related, and sent the case up for review by the Florida Supreme Court on a legal question about how “arising out of employment” should be interpreted under workers’ compensation law.
The Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals court’s narrow approach and reversed it. The Court explained that Florida’s workers’ compensation law asks a much broader question than tort law does: rather than asking whether a specific task (like walking) directly caused an injury, the correct test is whether the injury has an overall connection, or “work-relatedness,” to the employee’s job and job environment. “[O]ne way for a claimant to establish work-relatedness is to prove that his overall job duties and work environment exposed him to an increased risk of assault.” The Court emphasized that workers’ comp is a “no-fault” system, not a tort system, so the fact that a third-party criminal actually pulled the trigger doesn’t automatically make an injury non-work-related. Because factors like the employee’s work hours, the location’s crime rate, poor lighting along his required walking route, and his recent firing of employees could all support a finding that his job exposed him to heightened risk, the Court held that such workplace-assault injuries can be compensable if the worker proves that connection between the job and the attack.
Action Items
- Review workers’ compensation claims with legal counsel before denying coverage.
- Evaluate workplace safety hazards for correction to minimize worker injuries.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase