The Social Court No. 3 of Santander has recognized as a work-related in itinere accident the incident suffered by a worker while returning home by bicycle, after completing a 44-kilometer journey from his workplace. This case raises the debate on regulations concerning work-related accidents and the use of alternative means of transport, such as bicycles, especially over long distances.
REQUIREMENTS FOR AN "IN ITINERE" ACCIDENT
For an accident to be considered in itinere, it must meet several key elements, which in this case were thoroughly analyzed by Judge Pablo Rueda Díaz de Rábago:
Purpose (Teleological): The trip must be related to the worker's activity. In this case, the worker was directly returning from his workplace, clearly fulfilling this requirement. The judge had no doubt that the worker was on his way home when the accident occurred.
Timing (Chronological): The accident must occur within a reasonable time after the end of the workday. In this case, the accident occurred around 9:15 p.m., shortly after the worker left his workplace, and the judge highlighted that the "timing matched" when verifying the time spent and the distance covered.
Route (Geographical): The route must be the usual one between the workplace and the home. Here, the judge confirmed that the worker was following a normal route, without deviations or unusual paths, using local and national roads.
Means of Transport (Modal): This is the most debated aspect. The Social Security and the mutual insurer argued that traveling 44 kilometers by bicycle posed an unnecessary risk and that using a car or public transport would have been more reasonable. However, the judge rejected this argument, stating that the worker had every right to choose the bicycle as a means of transport, whether for health reasons, environmental concerns, or simply personal preference. Forcing him to use another means could have infringed on his right to decide how to commute.
REFLECTION ON THE DECISION
The ruling establishes that all the requirements for an in itinere accident are met in this case and that the bicycle, although it may seem like a riskier mode of transport, should not be dismissed due to distance or circumstances, as long as the route is reasonable and usual.
The judge also emphasized that forcing the worker to use a personal vehicle or public transport could violate his right to promote his health and well-being, as commuting by bicycle could offer both physical and mental benefits. Additionally, the judge noted that the accident did not occur under adverse or dangerous conditions, such as poor road conditions or bad weather, but rather in a normal and suitable context for cycling.
PRECEDENTS AND PERSPECTIVE
The judge cited precedents from the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, dated June 12, 2014, which had already recognized other alternative means of transport, such as scooters, as appropriate for in itinere journeys. The ruling also stresses that the relevant factor is that the worker followed a regular route, without deviations for personal or sporting purposes.
Regarding the use of the bicycle as a valid means of transport for an in itinere accident, the ruling also highlights the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJCat) dated February 5, 2001, which establishes key criteria. The court recognized that the bicycle can be an appropriate means of commuting, as long as the usual requirements for an in itinere accident (purpose, timing, route, and means of transport) are met. The ruling cautions that the accident would lose its work-related character if the route is diverted for personal reasons, such as recreational or sporting use, extending the journey or time. However, as long as the route is usual and without detours, the bicycle is an accepted means of transport for these purposes.
In conclusion, this case sets an important precedent in the evolving interpretation of the in itinere work-related accident, adapting to a society where more workers are opting for alternative and sustainable means of transport. The ruling emphasizes the need to adjust regulations to reflect the reality of modern commutes, recognizing that the worker's safety and choice are also part of their labor rights.