Idaho state parks cover volunteers under workman's comp.

Heading up to Lake Cascade state park in a week to be camp hosts again for the summer. Wish it was warmer.

So, I was an early poster on this thread and suspected that most volunteers would not be covered, yet from the information that has been posted since, it seems that many do get coverage under workman's comp. This threw me for a bit of a surprise as why would some business or government pay "no fault" medical benefits to a volunteer? But then on further consideration and reflection on the reasons for worker's comp in the first place, it dawned on me that the states and other entities do want the coverage to apply. The reason is not their benevolence, but the other value that comes to the "employer" from the worker's comp system; primarily the limitation of liability.

In exchange for the person covered not having to prove the negligence or other culpability of the employer, the employer has his liability limited to medical damages and fairly specified amounts for things like the loss of the use of a limb, etc. There also some "lost wages" that get paid, but at $1 per day, how much is that. Even if it is a set amount, the amounts are usually pretty low. The key damages for "pain and suffering" are eliminated in most state schemes as I recall. For example, if you step in a hole and end up with a broken leg and walk with a limp the rest of your life, as a general rule, you don't get to sue for more than the amount in the statute/regulations. You get the relatively small statutorily specified damages and your medical bills paid. From a business/government employer view, that is good as all businesses like some certainty in this kind of thing. Is it necessarily the best for the volunteer? Like most legal situations there is good and bad in trading a liability cap for not having to prove the employer's negligence (and also defending your lack of negligence).

Now, of course all this is still subject to the law of each state involved. I also suspect that the coverage discussed for organizations like churches and scouts is merely a component of their basic property/liability insurance coverage and not really worker's comp. If I was going to have volunteers on my site, I would want good insurance to protect against lawsuits by the injured volunteer.

Maybe there's a labor law lawyer who frequents the board who can add a bit or teach and clarify if I am off base, since my experience with the system is about 25 years old.

Thanks for reading if you are still following this. I am not sure why I rambled on so.

Boy. Am I glad I posted this question. It's been a real education.
1. We did get a W-2 form and the income had to be reported on our tax return. My total income for the year was certainly more than $600, but the income from the state was not.
2. Since we received a W-2, I think it could be argued that we are employed by the state, even though we had to sign papers as volunteer workers. I'm only thinking of this if we ever had to file a lawsuit due to an injury.
3. If we are paid by the state, but aren't limited by workmen's comp, it would seem to me that the state could end up being the one at the wrong end of a settlement should something happen. Not that I'd want to have to deal with suing the state.
4. The bad thing is that in the event of an injury or damage to our property, we'd have to file a claim with our personal insurance agency first, which would likely result in our rates being increased.

All things to think about I guess. Since we're heading south in September, it's probably not worth worrying about now, but it sure will make us think twice when we head back up north next spring.

Thanks for the input everyone.