This article analyzes the ruling of the Commercial Appellate Court, case no. Pž 6930/21 (“Ruling”), dated February 9, 2023, which presents an important stance on the employer’s liability for injuries sustained by employees regarding work:

The court concluded that there is no liability for the employer regarding non-material damages resulting from an injury sustained by an employee acting on their own initiative, which the employer could not foresee and whose consequences they could not avoid or eliminate.

In judicial practice, it is commonly held that when it comes to dangerous activities or tasks involving hazardous equipment (e.g., machinery), the employer is responsible for injuries to employees, based on the principle of objective liability (liability regardless of fault), according to the provisions of the Law on Contracts and Torts (“LCT”).

However, under certain circumstances, in accordance with LCT, the employer can be released from this liability.

Legal Provisions

Relevant provisions of the LCT:

• Anyone who causes damage to another is obliged to compensate for it unless they can prove that the damage occurred without their fault (principle of subjective liability).
• For damage arising from items or activities that pose an increased risk to the environment, liability exists regardless of fault (principle of objective liability).
• Damage includes the reduction of someone’s property (ordinary damage), the prevention of its increase (lost profit), and the infliction of physical or psychological pain or fear (non-material damage).
• Damage arising from a dangerous item or activity is presumed to originate from that item or activity unless proven otherwise.
• The owner of the item is liable for damage caused by it, and the person engaged in a dangerous activity is liable for damages arising from that activity.
• The owner of the item is released from liability if they can prove that the damage was caused solely by the actions of the injured party or a third party, which they could not foresee and whose consequences they could not avoid or eliminate (Article 177, paragraph 2).

Background

In this specific case, the employee (“Plaintiff“) was engaged by the employer (“Defendant“) under a contract for temporary and occasional work as a Packer in production, which did not involve operating the machinery for producing plastic bottle caps.

On one occasion, the Plaintiff operated the machinery (engaging in maintenance activities), which led to her injury. In this situation, the Plaintiff acted:

• contrary to the warning displayed on the machine,
• on her own initiative, without any instruction,
• against the job description for which she was hired,
• against the organization of work and business at the employer,
• without a valid reason and actual need, as the shift supervisor, responsible for machine maintenance, was present at work.

Considering the circumstances, the court determined that the conditions outlined in Article 177, paragraph 2 of the LCT were met for releasing the Defendant from liability for the injury sustained by the Plaintiff. The court ruled that the injury occurred solely due to the Plaintiff’s actions, which the Defendant could not foresee and whose consequences could not be avoided or eliminated, thereby rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for non-material damages as unfounded.

Conclusion

The Ruling demonstrates that not every dangerous activity or item associated with an employee’s work automatically imposes liability on the employer for injuries sustained and, consequently, the obligation to compensate the employee.

In practice, it often occurs that despite verbal and written warnings, training for safe work, and all other measures taken by the employer in accordance with Labor law and Law on Health and Safety at Work, employees may disregard these instructions and engage in actions leading to their injury, which the employer could not foresee and whose consequences could not be avoided.

Such cases fall under the application of Article 177, paragraph 2 of the LCT, where the employer is released from liability for the resulting injury and damages.

However, courts often favor employees, viewing them as the weaker party in the employment relationship, and may inadequately consider this legal provision and possibility.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you require further information, feel free to contact us.