A foreman and coworkers are drinking on the loading dock after work ends at 5 pm. A coworker is injured when he backs his truck into something while leaving because he was intoxicated. Is the injury compensable?

A foreman and coworkers are drinking on the loading dock after work ends at 5 pm. A coworker is injured when he backs his truck into something while leaving because he was intoxicated. Is the injury compensable?

• A. Yes because of the compensable consequences rule.
• B. Yes because the drinking was authorized by the foreman.
• C. No because the alcohol was a proximate cause of the injury.
• D. No because the injury was caused by the intoxication of the employee.

Answer: (B)

In California workers’ compensation, an injury is compensable if it arises out of and occurs in the course of employment. If the employer authorizes or requires an activity, the resulting injury remains within the scope of employment even if alcohol is involved. Here, the foreman authorized the drinking on the loading dock after work. The injury happened while the employee was leaving the job site after this employer‑permitted event, so it arose from employment and is compensable. The fact that intoxication occurred due to employer approval means the risk was created or sanctioned by the employer, not solely the employee’s voluntary action. The other options don’t fit because the compensable consequences rule isn’t about this initial injury, and proximate cause or blaming the employee’s intoxication alone would not defeat compensability when the employer authorized the drinking.

In California workers’ compensation, an injury is compensable if it arises out of and occurs in the course of employment. If the employer authorizes or requires an activity, the resulting injury remains within the scope of employment even if alcohol is involved. Here, the foreman authorized the drinking on the loading dock after work. The injury happened while the employee was leaving the job site after this employer‑permitted event, so it arose from employment and is compensable. The fact that intoxication occurred due to employer approval means the risk was created or sanctioned by the employer, not solely the employee’s voluntary action. The other options don’t fit because the compensable consequences rule isn’t about this initial injury, and proximate cause or blaming the employee’s intoxication alone would not defeat compensability when the employer authorized the drinking.