It states:
“ ... (None of the journey provisions apply) ... where the travel:
(a)was by a route that substantially increased the risk of sustaining an injury when compared with a more direct route;”
It could be said that someone driving off the main highway (not during peak hour traffic) to enjoy the views of a hilly back road with poor quality bitumen may be an increase to the risk of injury. However, is it a substantial increase to that risk? Probably not.
Let's look at a case that demonstrates the risk of sustaining injury being substantially increased by taking a different route to a more direct way of getting somewhere.
|
In the case of Rowe v Australian Shipping Commission (1981), the employee had stopped off at a hotel on his way home from work. After this, he walked through a construction site in the dark and injured himself. |
|
It was found that he had taken a route to his home that was dangerous; not only was it dark, there was also the matter of construction being undertaken, as well as slippery ground from rains that had occurred that day. |
From this example, it can be seen that the increase in risk to the employee of injuring himself was substantial and more so than had he travelled by a more direct route.
or
(b)“was interrupted in a way that substantially increased the risk of sustaining an injury.”