## Facts

- Mr. Smith was employed as a lagger by Stages and required to travel between various power stations to perform insulation work.
- On the day of the incident, Mr. Smith was traveling from one power station to another and was involved in a car accident, resulting in injury.
- Mr. Smith sought compensation from his employer, arguing that his travel was within the course of his employment.
- Stages contested the claim, asserting that the travel was not part of Mr. Smith’s duties and was therefore outside the scope of employment.
- The case raised questions regarding employer liability for injuries sustained during travel between work sites.

## Issues

1. Whether travel between work sites, when performed at the employer’s direction, is within the course of employment for the purpose of employer liability.
2. Whether an employee injured during such travel is entitled to compensation under the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969.
3. What factors determine whether travel is sufficiently connected to employment duties to fall within the course of employment.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the course of employment is not confined to the physical workplace and may include travel reasonably incidental to an employee’s duties.
- The travel undertaken by Mr. Smith was considered within the course of employment, as it was required by his duties and performed at the employer’s direction.
- The employer’s provision of a vehicle and control over the travel were key to the finding that Mr. Smith’s journey was necessary for his employment.
- The employer was found liable for the injuries sustained by Mr. Smith during the travel.

## Legal Principles

- The scope of “course of employment” extends beyond the workplace to include activities reasonably incidental to an employee’s duties.
- Travel to and from work is generally outside the course of employment unless directed or required by the employer under the terms of employment.
- Factors determining whether travel is within the course of employment include: employer’s control, purpose of travel, nature of employment, and timing/location of travel.
- Providing a vehicle or reimbursing travel expenses may indicate the travel is within the course of employment and increase employer liability.

## Conclusion

Smith v Stages [1989] AC 928 established that travel between work sites at an employer’s direction can fall within the course of employment, thereby expanding employer liability for work-related travel accidents. The decision offers clear criteria for determining when an employee’s travel is sufficiently connected to their duties for liability purposes, shaping employment law and workplace policies regarding travel.
