The Supreme Court recognized recently a case of a complaint filed by the employee of a sportsbook against her employer, claiming compensation for the damage arising as a consequence of robbery, which took place at the defendant\'s, during which the plaintiff was tied up and severely beaten. The woman reached her claims under the provisions of the Civil Code governing tortious liability, and therefore a prerequisite for the recognition of the claim was, among others, finding that the employer bears the blame for the employee\'s damage.
The Supreme Court noted that the Labour Code clearly states that the employer\'s duty is to ensure safe working conditions. According to the the formation determining the case, a culpable employer\'s failure in terms of safety which poses the reason for ensuing the damage, can lead to render the employer to be tortiously liable.
Fulfilling its obligation to ensure safe working conditions, one can not limit itself to only respect legal rules concerning this matter. The role of the employer is to ensure the worker actual safety in the workplace. The obligation of an employer is therefore relativized to the degree and nature of the risk occurring in the particular work environment - the probability of the emergence of the employee damages should intensify employer\'s efforts.
In the course of the proceedings by the Supreme Court, the the plaintiff\'s representative argued that the defendant owner of the Sportsbook has failed to fulfil its obligation to ensure safety to the employee, the workplace was not equipped with glass separating staff from the client, individual alarm or monitoring, and at the entrance to the premises there was no information about 24/7 day and night surveillance. On the other hand, from the evidence showed that the claimant worked behind the high counter, which prevents direct approach by attacker, the safe-deposit was in the premises, and the employee had a silent alarm, to which security company responded within minutes.
Analysing the presented facts, the Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff\'s point of view is based on the assumption, according to which the employer is required to take all possible precautions and safety manners. For obvious reasons, it is impossible. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that considering the employer to be unlawful in its operation would be possible if it did not implemented effective mechanisms to protect the employee, and in the present case, the defendant has provided such measures.
Source:
Supreme Court judgement of 13 September 2016. III PK 146/15
- Adam Gielnik