A safe working environment – is the sky the limit?
A recent case in the Court of Appeal brought to light the ‘responsibility’ of employers to provide employees with a safe working environment, keeping in mind that sometimes going the extra mile may still not prevent certain events from occurring.
The case goes back to 1993 when a gentleman was employed as a catering manager by Chef Italy, which operated as a take-away restaurant in San Gwann – prominently a residential area - and due to an armed robbery during normal business hours (6:30pm), on the 13 January 1993, led to the death, by gunshot, of the employee.
The deceased’s family wanted the employer, Chef Italy, to compensate them for the tragic death, and the court to determine whether Chef Italy was liable for damages.
The main argument brought forward by the heirs of the deceased was that Chef Italy, through the failure to provide a safe and secure working environment and by not having taken the necessary measures to counter the treat of such a crime, contributed to the violent death of the employee.
On July 7, 2004, the First Court awarded compensation to the heirs of the employee in the value of Lm 22,500 on grounds that the employer failed in its duty to provide a safe working environment for its employee.
Following the decision by the First Court, Chef Italy entered an appeal calling for the compensation to be withdrawn and saying that the First Court was incorrect to hold the company responsible for the death of the employee and that the compensation amount was excessive.
The Court of Appeal finally decided on the 29th February 2008 to accept Chef Italy’s appeal and withdraw the decision taken by the First Court, and provided its reasons for the reached verdict by mentioning that, quote:
• There had to be a nexus between the company’s purported negligence and the damages.
• The court was not satisfied in the circumstances that Chef Italy should be held responsible or damages. It is not shown that Chef Italy acted irresponsibly. The company operated according to law, even if it had not implemented the safety measures indicated by the First Court. The crime would still have been committed with or without such security measures.
• Chef Italy was not liable as an accomplice in crime.
• The public administration was responsible for street lighting. Besides, even if there was light outside the shop, this would not have deterred the robber.
• An alarm system would not normally be activated during working hours. It was not customary for a pasta shop to have the same system prevalent among banks, whereby the police would be notified instantly. Even if Chef Italy had had a burglar alarm, this would not have prevented the robbery. ”
This decision therefore clarifies somewhat the extent that an employer has to go to in order to protect ones employees from any unsafe practices or health hazards.
