The Delaware Superior Court overturned an Industrial Accident Board decision, ruling that a UPS driver intoxicated on the job is not entitled to workers compensation benefits. The case is UPS v. Willis, 2025 Del. Super. LEXIS 1258 (Super. Ct. 2025).
Background
On June 8, 2021, Timothy Willis, a truck driver for UPS, crashed into a guardrail while in the course of his employment. Willis was nearing the end of his shift, with his final task being to drop off a trailer in Hunt Valley, Maryland, and return the truck to a hub in Newark, Delaware.
When first responders arrived, they saw Willis throwing multiple beer cans out of the truck's window into the woods, and observed him slurring his speech, sweating profusely, and was unable to stand properly. He also smelled strongly of alcohol and appeared to have defecated on himself.
Officers found an open beer can on the truck's running board that was cool to the touch. Willis refused field sobriety tests and was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). He later entered a "probation before judgment" plea in a Maryland court. Willis claimed he crashed because he swerved to avoid hitting a deer on the road.
The Industrial Accident Board
Willis filed for workers' compensation, but UPS denied the claim. They argued that his voluntary intoxication and reckless indifference to danger removed him from the scope of his employment and his entitlement to workers compensation benefits.
The Delaware Industrial Accident Board sided with Willis and awarded him compensation. The Board reasoned that Willis was on his designated work route at the time of the crash, meaning he was where he was "reasonably expected to be under the circumstances." They determined that violating an employer's safety policy does not automatically place an employee outside the course and scope of employment.
The Board also claimed that UPS failed to definitively prove that Willis was intoxicated at the time of the crash or that intoxication was the proximate cause of the crash. The Board determined that the potential for deer in the area meant "it was likely that Willis's swerving to avoid deer was the cause in fact of the accident as opposed to Willis's intoxication."
UPS appealed the decision to the Delaware Superior Court.
Delaware Superior Court
The court reviewed the findings of the Industrial Accident Board, some of which they agreed with and some of which they disagreed with.
UPS claimed that the board erred in determining that Willis was not convicted of a DUI. The court agreed with the board's determination on this point since Willis entered a probation before judgment plea, meaning that Willis was not officially convicted of a DUI.
The court also agreed with the board that excluding the breathalyzer results was correct procedure since UPS did not provide a witness who could authenticate the results.
The court found, however, that the board erred in finding that Willis was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
A worker is eligible for compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, as long as the injury is causally related to the employment. A worker is eligible while traveling for work if the travel is deemed "within the course and scope of his employment unless there is a distinct departure from work duties."
The court determined that being intoxicated on the job is a departure from the ordinary course of employment. They determined that even without a DUI conviction, the available evidence showed that Willis was intoxicated at the time of the accident.
While the court agreed with the board's statement that violating an employer's policy does not necessarily place an employee outside the course and scope of employment, in this situation, Willis didn't just violate company policy but public policy as well.
The court stated: "A truck driver cannot reasonably drink, nor is he expected to drink, alcohol while operating a semi-trailer weighing thousands of pounds on curving back roads at close to four in the morning. Such conduct not only violates company policy—it is also prohibited by law."
The court ruled that the board erred in awarding workers compensation benefits to Willis and reversed the decision.
Editor's Note
The court determined that Willis was acting outside the course and scope of his employment by being intoxicated. They determined that the evidence supported that Willis was intoxicated, while the board relied on speculation.
Further, Willis's intoxication was not just in violation of UPS company policy, but in violation of public policy. The court noted that affirming the board's ruling would have set a dangerous precedent that would allow employees to drink while driving on the job and still be eligible to receive workers compensation benefits.
Read More: