Skip to main content
Appellate Court Takes a Deep Dive into Personal Comfort in City of Mascoutah v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission
The 5th District Appellate Court of Illinois recently issued a significant decision in the City of Mascoutah v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. The case involved a lifeguard who was accidentally injured during his break time. Ultimately, the case provides another example of how broadly the personal comfort doctrine can be interpreted to have petitioner’s conduct fall within the course of employment.
Procedurally, the Arbitrator ruled that the petitioner had sustained a compensable accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the City of Mascoutah. Petitioner was awarded temporary total disability benefits, reimbursement for medical expenses, and prospective medical care. The City appealed the decision to the Commission, which affirmed and adopted the Arbitrator’s findings. The decision was once again affirmed by the Circuit Court of St. Clair County. This series of affirmations set the stage for the employer’s subsequent appeal to the 5th District Appellate Court of Illinois.
The fact pattern was as follows: On June 11, 2021, the petitioner was at work in his position as a lifeguard. During his break, the petitioner was performing dives with another lifeguard and patron. They were attempting a “back dive,” which was explicitly prohibited by the employer’s rules. After watching the others perform a “back dive,” the petitioner attempted the dive himself. The petitioner failed and he struck his head and neck on the edge of the pool resulting in a severe spinal injury.
At trial, the petitioner testified that he was unaware that back dives were prohibited by pool rules. He stated that he never read the rule book or the “Mascoutah Pool Lifeguards Rules and Regulations” page which was supposed to be signed at the beginning of employment. Further, the petitioner stated he had never witnessed the rule enforced, nor was he told by his managers to enforce the rule. Finally, he testified that no on-duty lifeguards blew the whistle for them to stop performing the back dives.
A manager of the pool also testified at trial, stating that pool rules were posted in the lifeguard shack. These rules explicitly stated no front flips, back flips, or back dives. She also stated that she could not say for sure that petitioner ever read the “Mascoutah Pool Lifeguards Rules and Regulations” and did not present the signed document at trial.
In ruling for the petitioner, the Arbitrator found that the conduct fell under the personal comfort doctrine. The doctrine holds that when an employee is injured while engaging in activities related to personal comforts, such as eating lunch or participating in authorized recreation during a work break, they are still considered within the course of employment.
Additionally, the Arbitrator relied on Republic Iron v. Industrial Comm’n, which establishes that an injury may still “arise out” of employment even if the employee violated a work rule. Republic Iron v. Industrial Comm’n, 302 Ill. 401 (1922). However, if the rule violation occurs while the petitioner performs an act of personal convenience, “entirely out of the sphere of his employment,” injury will not arise out of the employment. Id.
The 5th District Appellate Court declined to conclude that the Commission’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court found that the petitioner was injured at work while on an authorized break. Petitioner’s employer allowed lifeguards to use the pool during their breaks. Further, the petitioner was injured while diving, an activity directly connected to his job. Finally, the petitioner was exposed to the risks of swimming and diving more often than members of the general public by the nature of his employment.
Critically, the Court found that a reasonable inference could be made that petitioner was not aware of the rules prohibiting back dives. Despite the employer’s evidence to the contrary, the Court found that the Commission was entitled to take the petitioner’s testimony over that of the employer’s witnesses. Even if the petitioner knew he violated the employer’s safety rules, the Court stated that petitioner’s conduct was likely covered by the personal comfort doctrine and within the scope of his employment.
The Court reiterated that this was not a case where the petitioner was in an area he was not supposed to be in nor using equipment that he was not allowed to use. The petitioner was swimming and diving in the pool during his lunch break, which he was authorized to do by the employer. Even if the conduct was negligent, it did not take him wholly outside the scope of his employment.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Commission’s decision, as it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
To better protect itself from liability, the employer should have had the petitioner execute a copy of the rule book. Failing to do so opened the door for the petitioner to make arguments that he did not know his conduct violated his employer’s rules, despite being the enforcer of those rules. To protect against arguments of ignorance, we recommend having new employees sign letters acknowledging their understanding of all safety rules.
That said, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s knowledge of the rule book likely would not have mattered here. Negligent conduct does automatically take a petitioner outside the scope of their employment.
The City of Mascoutah case serves as a good example of the breadth of the personal comfort doctrine, and the extent to which the doctrine protects employees under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. Unfortunately for employers, the Court failed to identify where the line is drawn on compensability for activities in which an employee engages on break.
If you have any questions about this case or the personal comfort doctrine, reach out to our attorneys here.