Tort liability and employment law have a long and intertwined history. The "control test," initially used by English courts to determine employee status, originated in tort law. Employers can be held liable for damages caused by their employees to third parties and property, provided an employment relationship exists and the employee acted under the employer's control or direction. The evolution of tort liability has often mirrored developments in employment law. A crucial element in establishing employer liability is whether the individual who caused the damage was indeed an employee. This determination rests on the definition of "employee" as established by employment law. Civil courts adjudicating tort claims must interpret the Employment and Labor Law to ascertain the existence of an employment contract between the employer and the injured party. The court cannot apply a different standard for employee identification than the one defined in the Employment ...
Mitiku H. -v.- Mesfin T.
Federal Supreme Court Cassation
File No. 67201 (March 3, 2012)
Holding of the Court
The employer shall
not be liable for intentionally self-inflicted injury at the workplace. Injury
incurred due to the violation of safety regulations by intoxication in such a
manner that the employee cannot control himself shall be considered as
intentionally self-inflicted and the employer shall be exonerated from
liability.
Labour Proclamation No.377/2003, Articles 96(1), 96(2)(a)(b),
______________
Cassation File No.
67201
Yekatit 26, 2004 E.C.
(March 3, 2012)
Federal Supreme Court Cassation
Division
Justices: Hagos
Woldu, Almaw Wolie, Ali Mohammed, Nega Dufesa,
Adane Negussie
Petitioner: Mitiku H.
Respondent: Mesfin T.
The court has
examined the case and rendered the following judgment.
Judgement
The issue in the
present case is the scope of liability of the employer for an employment injury
sustained by the employee at a place and time of work.
The respondent
brought an action against the petitioner before the Hawassa First Instance
Court alleging that he sustained employment injury while at work and claimed
compensation from the employer for bodily harm.
The present
petitioner contended that since the respondent reported for duty in a state of
intoxication and sustained an injury as a result of it, the employer is
exonerated from liability as per Article 96(2)(b) of Labour Proclamation
No.377/2003. The court accepted this contention and denied compensation to the
plaintiff at the lower court (current respondent). The latter took the case on
appeal. However, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the lower court.
He then took the case
to the Cassation Division of the Regional Supreme Court arguing that there is
fundamental error of law committed by the lower courts which needs to be
rectified. The Regional Cassation Division cited the extra-contractual
liability provisions of the Ethiopian Civil Code and held the present
petitioner liable to compensate the employee.
The petitioner
submitted his petition to the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division stating
that the Regional Cassation Division erred in applying extra-contractual
provisions of the law in order to hold the employer liable while the
relationship between the disputing parties was contractual.
The Federal Supreme
Court Cassation Division has observed from the facts verified by the lower
courts that the present respondent reported for duty in the morning but left
the premises as soon as the manager (owner) of the enterprise was not around.
He again came back to the premises after a while. By realizing that the
respondent was in a state of intoxication from the way he spoke and walked, the
petitioner instructed him to go out of the premises and banned him from
working. Despite the instruction of the petitioner, the respondent continued
working and sustained injury instantly.
Based on the facts of
the case and the relevant law, an employer is, in principle, liable
irrespective of fault, for employment injuries sustained by his employee(s).
Nevertheless, it has also been stated that the employer shall not be liable for
any injury intentionally inflicted by the injured worker himself. According to
Article 96(2) of the Labour Proclamation No. 377/2003, “non-obedience of
express safety instructions or non-observance of the provisions of accident
prevention” or “reporting for work in a state of intoxication that prevents him
from regulating his body or understanding” is deemed to be intentional
infliction of injury upon oneself.
At the time of the
injury, it was shown that the respondent was intoxicated; as a result of this
he was instructed to leave the premises. However, he failed to comply with the
instruction of the employer and resumed working and sustained the injury. Under
these circumstances the decisions of the lower courts that relieved the
employer from liability are in accordance with the letters and spirit of the
law and there is no fundamental error of law. Rather, there is fundamental
error of law in the decision of the Cassation Division of the Regional Supreme
Court which held the petitioner liable for the injury. The court has thus
rendered the following decree.
Decree
1.The decision of the
Regional Supreme Court Cassation Division of the Southern Nations,
Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional State in File No.51342 is reversed pursuant
to Article 348(1) of the Civil Procedure Code.
2.The decisions of
the Hawassa First Instance Court and Hawassa High Court are affirmed.
3.As the injury
sustained by the respondent in the present case is not an employment injury,
the employer shall not be liable for the injury.
...
Signature of five
justices
__________________________________________________
Source: Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division Decisions Volume 13, pp. 64-65
Abridged translation:
Mehari Redae
Comments
Post a Comment