She fell metres from the depot - but the tribunal says that walk wasn't work
A bus driver who fell walking to her car after a shift has lost her compensation appeal - and the ruling matters for employers running staff car parks.
Alicia Kras drove buses for Torrens Transit Services. On July 11, 2024, she finished her afternoon shift around 5.45pm, parked her bus, stopped at her locker and checked the next day's roster. She then waited inside the main building for her partner to walk her out. Together they left through the depot gate and set off along a public footpath toward the Park 'n' Ride car park, which Torrens Transit leased for staff.
About 50 metres along, where the footpath met a driveway, her foot caught on a raised, uneven section. Her ankle rolled. She fell backward and fractured her right wrist.
Kras claimed compensation under South Australia's Return to Work Act 2014. The Return to Work Corporation rejected the claim, saying it wasn't a work injury. She asked the Tribunal to review that decision, lost at trial, and appealed to the Full Bench. On June 2, 2026, she lost again.
The case turns on a question every HR and safety lead wrestles with: when does the workplace end and the commute begin?
Kras argued the walk was bound up with her job. She said staff on intermediate shifts were told to use the Park 'n' Ride, that the employer leased both the depot and the car park, and that a padlocked gate forced her onto the footpath to reach her car. The journey, she said, was "inextricably connected" with her employment.
The trial judge disagreed. He found Kras "was not directed to, nor was she required to, park in the St Agnes Park 'n' Ride Carpark." Under cross-examination, she accepted she had never been told she had to park there. Once she passed the depot boundary, he found, she had started a private journey home - and there was no "real and substantial connection" between her employment and that trip.
The Full Bench - Deputy President Judge Calligeros, Deputy President Judge Rossi and Deputy President Lieschke - backed that view. The trial judge had read the law correctly, applied it properly and explained himself adequately. On the facts, they said, dismissal was "the only conclusion reasonably open."
Several threads run straight into HR practice.
The judgment leans into the modern blur between home and work. The Bench noted that working from home is "becoming possible and accepted" and that "the line between a worker's home and workplace has, in some cases, become blurred." Even so, it said, the journey rules still set limits - tested case by case.
Offering a car park is not the same as controlling the commute. The Bench observed that employers commonly make a car park available "if they wish," and found no evidence the Park 'n' Ride was part of Kras's contract. Providing parking, by itself, didn't drag her walk back inside the scope of work.
And ordinary hazards stay ordinary. The Bench cited the High Court's view in Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council that uneven ground is part of walking outdoors. An uneven footpath, without more, wasn't an employment-linked risk.
The Tribunal also flagged a related case, Return to Work Corporation of South Australia v Priolo, set to be heard later this year, which will test how the two journey provisions fit together. The line may get sharper.
For employers, the takeaway is about control and paperwork. Directions you actually give, requirements written into contracts, and real control over how and when staff travel are what can push a journey into compensable territory. A car park you simply offer, with no control over the trip, sits on the other side of the line.
