A recent Illinois appellate decision looks closely at when an assault on a traveling employee is covered under workers’ compensation. Although the ruling is nonprecedential, it provides a clear roadmap for how courts analyze street risks, the “aggressor” defense, and causation in cases involving third-party attacks.
The Incident
Jose Avila worked as a delivery driver for Amazon. On August 1, 2023, while making deliveries in Aurora, Illinois, a black SUV abruptly cut in front of his truck. Avila had to brake suddenly. He testified that the SUV nearly struck a woman unloading groceries nearby.
Avila honked and gestured toward the SUV driver. He then stopped his truck. According to Avila, he stopped to check on the woman who had almost been hit. Dash camera footage showed him stopped with a pedestrian nearby.
The SUV driver exited his vehicle and approached Avila’s truck. Avila, still seated and buckled in with the door open, got out as the driver approached. The SUV driver threw the first punch. A brief fight followed, partially out of view of the camera. The woman intervened and the confrontation ended.
Avila returned to his truck and drove away, continuing his delivery route. Four to five minutes later, a few blocks away, he parked to make another delivery. At that point, several individuals—including the earlier SUV driver—arrived in another vehicle. Avila was attacked from behind, knocked down, and beaten. He suffered facial fractures, dental injuries, head trauma, and later required medical and dental treatment, as well as care for psychological symptoms.
What the Commission Decided
An arbitrator initially found the injuries compensable and awarded benefits, including temporary disability, medical care, penalties, and attorneys’ fees.
The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed. It concluded that Avila was the aggressor in the first incident because of his gestures and decision to exit the truck. The Commission also found that the second attack would not have happened “but for” his conduct during the first encounter. In its view, the assaults were personal and not connected to his job.
The circuit court reversed the Commission, and the employer appealed.
The Appellate Court’s Ruling
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court and reinstated compensability.
First, the court found little dispute that Avila was “in the course of” his employment during the second assault. He had resumed his route and was actively making a delivery. The attack happened while he was performing his job duties.
Second, the court rejected the idea that the injuries did not “arise out of” employment. As a delivery driver, Avila was required to travel public streets and interact with traffic. Confrontations with other motorists are a risk inherent in that work. The law recognizes that traveling employees face increased exposure to street risks.
The Aggressor Defense
The court carefully examined whether Avila had become the aggressor. An employee who starts a physical fight can lose protection under workers’ compensation.
Here, the video did not show Avila throwing the first punch. Angry gestures and exiting a vehicle were not enough, by themselves, to prove he escalated the situation into physical violence. The court concluded that the Commission’s finding that Avila was the aggressor was against the clear weight of the evidence.
The Second Assault
The court also rejected the Commission’s “but for” causation argument. There was a meaningful break between the two incidents. Avila had left the scene, driven several blocks, and resumed his deliveries. The second assault occurred at a new location and was initiated by others.
Workers’ compensation does not require that employment be the only cause of an injury. It is enough that work was a contributing cause. Because Avila’s job placed him on the road and exposed him to the public, and because he was actively working at the time of the second attack, the injury was compensable.
Why This Case Matters
For lawyers, this case underscores the importance of analyzing time, location, and whether the employee had returned to work duties before an injury. It also shows that the aggressor defense requires solid evidence of actual physical escalation—not just heated words or gestures.
For injured workers, especially traveling employees, the decision reinforces a key principle: if your job requires you to be out on the streets, the risks that come with that exposure may be covered—even when an assault is involved.
