The National Court did not mark the judgment of the Reykjavík District Court in the case of a woman who sued TM because of an accident she had while working at the Nesbú egg farm .
The accident happened in late January 2020. A woman who had worked for the company for five years boiling and cracking eggs had a slippery accident outside when she was going out with rubbish, causing part of his professional duties. Hálka was outside that day and the woman fell on her way to the trash. She had a sprained neck and a sprained shoulder. She was temporarily unable to work due to the accident and temporarily 100% disabled.
The woman filed a lawsuit against Nesbúeggja’s insurance company, TM, where she demanded that TM’s liability in the case be recognized. She filed the case on the grounds that Nesbúeggi had a duty to provide non-slip walkways to the trash can. The unmarked district court judgment said in this regard:
“The plaintiff relies on the fact that it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that the staff’s walkways are easy and not maintained in such a way as to involve a risk of bodily injury or other types of injury to health.” The defendant Nesbúegg ehf. has not assumed this responsibility, contrary to laws and regulations, and this is considered the fault of the company. Plaintiff’s accident and subsequent bodily injury are likely the result of culpable conduct, and the requirements of the tort rule are therefore considered to be satisfied in this case against defendant Nesbúeggim ehf. Does it comply with the principles set out in Law no. 46/1980 on installations, hygiene and safety in the workplace, that the walking paths that staff are supposed to take are not likely to endanger staff. This includes, among other things, that appropriate anti-slip protection must be provided, as slippery surfaces present a high risk of personal injury due to the foreseeable risk of falling.
The applicant refers to paragraph 1. Article 4 Act no. 46/1980, which stipulates that the employer and/or his foreman must promote good conditions, hygiene and safety in the workplace. At the same time, points a and b of article 13 specify from the law that the employer must ensure that maximum safety and good facilities are taken care of, and this in particular with regard to the performance of work and workplaces.
Then it says in paragraph 1. Article 37 Act no. 46/1980 that the work must be conducted and executed in such a way as to respect maximum safety and good equipment and good hygiene.”
Nesbúegg and TM rejected responsibility and considered the event to be either an accident or the fault of the woman herself, who should have taken care of her since she was aware of the difficult circumstances. Could the incident be attributed to the woman’s negligence?
The district court accepted those arguments last year, but the result indicates the accident was not attributable to anything other than the plaintiff’s negligence. She herself made the decision to take out the trash, even though she was aware of the slippery conditions. “The plaintiff had worked for the defendant for five years in the same job and was familiar with all the knots and conditions in the workplace. She must therefore be well aware of the need to be very careful and to be careful of the ice that could form in the area towards the garbage container, as she goes there almost every day. She did not do so this time and must be responsible for it herself,” the verdict reads.
The case is to be heard again in district court
The Landsrecht overturned the verdict on Friday on the grounds that the district judge had not taken a reasoned position on the arguments of the woman who pointed out that Nesbú had not reported her accident to the labor inspectorate and was therefore responsible lack of sufficient evidence as to the cause of the accident. The decision of the National Court stipulates, among other things:
“It was not possible to rule on the merits of the acquittal by the Respondent of the Appellant’s request for recognition without taking a position on these grounds, cf. point f, paragraph 1 114 Act no. 91/1991 on the processing of civil cases. Consequently, it will not be possible to ignore the impugned judgment and propose to the district judge to take up the case for argument and appreciation of the judgment.”
See more here
