Gravette v. Visual Aids Electronics, 90 A.3d 483

Gravette, an Idaho resident, was a traveling audio-visual technician whose employer paid his travel and hotel to work at the Gaylord National Resort/Convention Center for a multi-day assignment (July 7–16, 2011).
On July 10, 2011 he worked 7:00 a.m.–3:00 p.m.; later that night (about midnight) while off-duty he was dancing in the Gaylord Hotel’s on-site nightclub and slipped on liquid on the dance floor, injuring his pelvis.
Nightclub access was limited to hotel registrants and guests; Gravette was not intoxicated and was not on any employer-directed task or performing work at the time.
The Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission denied benefits, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; the circuit court affirmed.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed, applying Mulready’s positional-risk test and holding reasonable, foreseeable recreational activities by a traveling employee on employer-provided premises are compensable.

Issue	Gravette’s Argument	Employer’s Argument	Held
Whether injury "arose out of and in the course of employment" for a traveling employee injured while dancing at the employer-paid hotel’s nightclub	Dancing at the hotel was a reasonable, foreseeable recreation incident to travel; therefore compensable	Dancing was a personal deviation / not reasonably incidental to employer-required travel and thus not compensable	Reversed: injury arose out of and in the course of employment because reasonable, foreseeable recreational activities by traveling employees on employer-provided premises are compensable

Mulready v. Univ. Research, 360 Md. 51 (2000) (adopts positional-risk test: traveling employees’ ordinary activities incidental to travel are generally compensable)
Klein v. Terra Chem. Int’l, Inc., 14 Md. App. 172 (1972) (earlier Maryland decision applying increased-risk test; disapproved in Mulready)
American Airlines v. LeFevers, 674 So. 2d 940 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (flight attendant injured diving in hotel pool on layover held compensable)
Gray v. Eastern Airlines, 475 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (compensable injury while exercising during an enforced layover; reasonableness/foreseeability test)
McCann v. Hatchett, 19 S.W.3d 218 (Tenn. 2000) (Tennessee adopts majority rule: reasonable recreational activities during travel are compensable)
Bagcraft Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, 705 N.E.2d 919 (Ill. App. 3d 1999) (recreational activity reasonably anticipated by employer at travel premises held compensable)
Jacobs v. Sara Lee Corp., 577 S.E.2d 696 (N.C. App. 2003) (personal deviation analysis; compensability depends on whether injury occurred during deviation or after returning to business route)
Williams v. Atlanta Family Restaurants, 419 S.E.2d 328 (Ga. App. 1992) (denial where employee’s post-work decisions were not "normal and prudent"; distinguishes imprudent personal conduct)