A foreman and coworkers are drinking on the loading dock after work. A coworker injures himself 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)

The main idea is that injuries are compensable if they occur in the course of employment and the activity that led to the injury is one the employer authorized or facilitated. When the employer allows or promotes a workplace activity involving risk, that risk remains part of the job.

In this scenario, the foreman authorized the crew to drink on the loading dock after work. Because the employer actively permitted this drinking, the resulting risk is tied to the employment context. The injury happened as a consequence of that employment-related activity, so it falls within the scope of coverage under workers’ compensation.

The other options would misapply the cause-and-effect idea: simply pointing to intoxication as the proximate cause would overlook the fact that the drinking was authorized by the foreman, keeping the event in the course of employment. Similarly, attributing the injury solely to the employee’s intoxication ignores the employer’s role in authorizing the drinking.