The obligation to implement a safe work method
Sep 25, 2019
By: John Geva and Shlomi Hadar – Attorneys and Mediators
Recently, a personal injury claim was filed in the Safed Magistrate’s Court against the Gush Halav Local Council, following injuries sustained by an employee who cut himself while working as a gardener for the municipality.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the local authority and its insurance company, claiming that the council had been negligent. The council argued that the employee was skilled, and therefore, if he acted negligently and chose to cut the pipe with a utility knife, the responsibility rested solely with him.
The court examined whether the authority had a duty of care toward its employees. After reviewing a series of legal precedents, the court determined that the employer-employee relationship establishes an implied duty of care of the employer toward the employee. According to case law, an employer owes a broad duty of care, which includes the obligation to:
Establish a safe method of work
Train the employee on the proper method of work
Supervise the proper execution of the work method, in accordance with safety regulations
However, the court emphasized that “…even though this is not strict liability, case law establishes that an employer must also take into account the possibility that an employee may act carelessly during work, even if previously warned about the risks.”
Court examination
The court examined whether the local authority was negligent towards the worker and determined that, from a factual perspective, the worker did not undergo safety training as required to prevent foreseeable dangers and that he did not receive any instructions regarding the equipment required to work with it. Furthermore, the local authority did not have any tools in its warehouse suitable for cutting pipes.
The court ruled: "... since the plaintiff did not receive the equipment and tools and was not provided with any equipment that was required, or better and safer for performing the work, and did not undergo any training on gardening or safety, then even if there were shears in that warehouse, he cannot be held liable for not choosing to use them, or for asking for them and taking a Japanese knife instead ."
Therefore, the court ruled, there is a clear causal connection between the local authority's negligence and the damage, since if the authority had instructed the plaintiff on safety procedures in general and working with sharp tools in particular (such as using gloves when working with sharp tools, or placing the pipe on a table when underwriting, or using safer tools to cut a pipe), the accident could have been avoided.
In conclusion, the court imposed the majority of liability on the local authority at 75% and the employee was held liable (within the framework of contributory fault) at 25%. This leads to the conclusion that in professional industries such as the construction industry, where workers are exposed to safety hazards and especially when there are specific regulations such as the Occupational Safety Regulations, the risk of being found liable in negligence claims is very high and requires extreme caution in exposing oneself to liability against negligence claims, requiring extreme caution in implementing safe work practices and taking out appropriate insurance.
מסמכים
