An employee's fall while working from home was an occupational accident

On 2 May 2025, the Supreme Court ruled on the scope of accidents covered by section 5 of the Danish Workers' Compensation Act.

The case concerned an employee who worked from home and, at some point during the workday, got up from their desk and went to the coffee machine in the kitchen. On the way back to the desk, the employee tripped over a box on the floor and was injured.

An occupational injury?

The parties agreed that the employee's brewing coffee had a natural connection to the work and that the accident occurred at a time when the employee was in the process of performing their work. However, the parties did not agree on whether the accident should be considered an occupational injury under the Danish Workers' Compensation Act or whether the accident was purely private, as the box – which the employee stumbled over – was not related to work.

The employer's responsibility to ensure a healthy and safe working environment

The Supreme Court ruled that the employee's accident, which occurred at a time when the employee was working from home, must be considered an occupational accident under section 5 of the Danish Workers' Compensation Act. The fact that the employee had stumbled over a private object was no reason to deviate from this principle.

The Supreme Court also found that it is the employer's responsibility to ensure a healthy and safe working environment regardless of where the work is performed and that the employer, as part of its objective responsibility under the Workers' Compensation Act, bears the risk of injury caused by the employee stumbling over their belongings while working at home, even though this is unrelated to the work, as the belongings can be considered as part of the home's interior.

Littler notes

The ruling emphasizes the responsibility of employers to ensure a healthy and safe working environment, regardless of where the work is performed, and that employees are covered by the employer's occupational insurance if the work is performed at a location accepted or designated by the employer.

It is emphasized that the case only concerned liability under the Workers' Compensation Act, which is covered by the statutory workers occupational insurance.

It was not a question in the case whether the employer was liable under the general rules of damages, which generally requires that the employer has acted in a negligent manner.