05-06-2025
Ruling in favour of a company for the worker's recklessness when he or she had an accident
A judgment of the Labour Court No. 1 of Cáceres, of 20 January 2025, exempts a company from any liability in an accident involving a worker with a chainsaw, because it admits in the proven facts that the company had provided the correct means of protection: it was provided with boot PPE and instep protection), provided him with the appropriate training (in ORP art. 19 and with a theoretical and practical chainsaw course), and the declaration of the worker's aptitude in a medical report. The worker decided that he did not need them and the ruling determines that in these cases the company does not pay for the recklessness of others.
It also takes into account that a report from the existing health and safety coordinator found that the plaintiff and his colleagues used the PPE of chainsaws. It is also highlighted that the worker exercised the function of manager in the field, which implies greater responsibility in compliance with safety regulations. Additionally, it was found that the work was being carried out on a construction site with a security coordinator who recorded a surveillance, which has become proof that the company did not neglect its duty "in vigilando".
Thus, the sentence states that "the employer did not have the capacity to prevent an irresponsible worker from ignoring what common sense dictated, so he is the only one to blame for the damage suffered", and the magistrate determines that the attitude of the injured party is reckless. All this leads to the failure of the worker's claim against the company.
This ruling is a clear example of what we at ERGASIA SEGURETAT have been insisting on regularly, regarding the fundamental need to carry out prevention correctly (in this case the delivery of PPE and the completion of appropriate courses), and to carry out a correct monitoring of compliance by workers, involving middle management, and making records (colloquially called "checks") of such surveillance. This ruling is an example of the benefits provided by these protection and surveillance actions, in the event of an accident.