An interesting work accident claim incident here, this time from Italy. I had to use Google Translate on it, so a few things might be lost in translation, but generally speaking you should get the gist of what’s going on here – you can read this in addition to this other blog post that I recently published about road traffic accident claims law (United States).

The recklessness of the employee does not exclude the responsibility of the manager of the plant for failing to properly secure the car Supreme Court (Fourth Criminal n. 42978 of 29 November 2001, Pres. Violets, Rel. Marzano) – relating to work based accident claims law.

Giuliana B., an official of Nestle Italian, involved in a wrapping machine, while the plant was still tried to remove a lump of chocolate from the cutter by introducing the hand in a space of 45 mm. vacated by Plexiglas door placed to protect the gears; suddenly the car is moved up and the left hand that was between the blades was crushed.

In the criminal trial that followed, the manager of the factory was defended by claiming that the incident occurred on the imprudent conduct of the worker who, before introducing your hand into the machine, he should remove the protective Plexiglas pressing thereby the switch, and thus blocking the cutter.

Both the Magistrate that the Court of Appeal in Perugia, have claimed the responsibility of the manager noting that according to the law (art. 68 of Presidential Decree no. 354/95) “segregation of the working parts, must be, as far as possible, absolute , and it must be made so as to not only prevent accidental contact between these bodies and the workers who use the machine but also contacts took “and that in the present case would have been possible to reduce the gap left in the protection of Plexiglas (to allow the passage of the packaged chocolate), so as to make impossible the introduction of a hand without the simultaneous lifting of the door, which in turn, would have resulted in the blocking of the machine.

The official appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the Court of Appeal should have recognize the reckless behavior of the worker the sole cause of the accident.

The Supreme Court (Fourth Criminal Section no. 42978 of 29 November 2001, Pres. Violets, Rel. Marzano) dismissed the action, noting that emerged from the inquiry carried out the possibility of creating a security such as to prevent the worker could introduce hand in the machine and that the removal of lumps of chocolate was within the duties entrusted to Giuliana B. and she habitually carried out.

Abnormal behavior of the employee – said the Court – can gain value occurred because, by itself sufficient to cause the event, when it is absolutely foreign to the production process and the tasks assigned, resolving in a behavior totally unpredictable; It is not however sufficient to exclude the responsibility of the entrepreneur behavior reckless, careless, reckless, negligent worker, put in place in the context of work carried out, as such conduct, it is not all that great and unpredictable.