Police officer injured at home recognized as workplace accident victim
While on patrol, a police officer returned home to retrieve forgotten work keys. He lost his balance while exiting his high-profile patrol vehicle in his driveway and sustained injuries. The Tel Aviv Labor Court ruled the incident constitutes a workplace accident.
A police officer who was injured at his home has been recognized as a workplace accident victim: Judge Osnat Rubovich-Barkash of the Tel Aviv Labor Court was convinced that he had returned home to collect a set of keys critical to his mission, and therefore it is a workplace accident.
The individual is a 34-year-old who has worked for about a decade in the police as a field patrol officer and traffic enforcement officer. In February 2024, as part of his patrol work, he was driving with his officer to visit a bereaved father who lost a son in the October 7 massacre. At some point, he discovered he had forgotten his operational key ring at home – which grants him access to the patrol car, the office, and handcuffs. At this stage, he headed back to his home using a high-profile police vehicle.
After parking, as he exited the patrol car, he lost his balance and fell, resulting in injuries to his head, back, and ankle. According to him, he initially recovered and continued his daily routine, but the next morning the pain intensified to the point where he could not function or move, "to the level that I could not take the child to kindergarten."
In July 2024, the National Insurance Institute rejected the officer's request to be recognized as a workplace accident victim, arguing that the accident occurred after his commute from work had ended. Consequently, he filed the lawsuit in court last March, claiming he returned home for work purposes and that he was injured due to the unique conditions of the police vehicle he was driving.
Conversely, the National Insurance Institute argued that the event occurred within the plaintiff's home premises, and not as part of his work routine, and therefore it should not be considered a workplace accident. It was argued that routine exiting of a vehicle is not a "hazard" or "road risk," and that in a similar case, involving a driving instructor injured while exiting a car, the court ruled it was not a workplace injury.
However, Judge Rubovich-Barkash ruled that the officer was correct:
"We are convinced that this is a workplace accident, as the plaintiff returned home for work purposes because he forgot keys required for his work."
The decision clarified that although the accident occurred on the home premises, it was not caused by road risks inherent to the residence. It was noted that he fell during the stage of exiting the police vehicle, and that his stumble was not in the private yard – but in the vehicle itself: "Since the reason he parked was for work purposes, to take the business keys he had forgotten and needed for the continuation of his work, we are convinced that this is indeed an 'accident on the way to work'."
To this, the judge added the large dimensions of the vehicle and its height, and the existence of a step for exiting and entering it. She determined that these – combined with the fact that the plaintiff did not usually drive this vehicle – contributed to the accident, and these are elements related to police work. In conclusion, she recognized the officer's fall on his home premises as a workplace accident and ordered the appointment of a medical expert on behalf of the court to clarify the issue of causal link, upon which the man will be finally recognized by the National Insurance Institute.
