Skrevet af
Dragged down by the desk
The employer was not liable for an industrial accident where a defective desk collapsed and dragged an employee down with it.
Skrevet af
Malene Langermann
Forfattere
According to the health and safety regulation, employers must organise and supervise that work is carried out in a safe and healthy manner. This includes a duty to ensure and control the layout of the workplace. In this case, the Western High Court had to decide whether an employer had disregarded this duty and acted in a way giving rise to liability when a defective desk caused an occupational injury.
The case concerned an employee who, in connection with relocating to a new department at the employer, had to move into an already furnished office, which included a desk. When the employee showed the office to a co-worker, they decided to open a window but in order to do that they had to move the desk a few centimetres.
However, when they lifted the desk, the desk leg on the employee’s side folded under the desk, causing the desk to collapse, and since the employee was holding the tabletop, she was caught in the fall. After the industrial accident, the employee suffered headaches and also split both her eyebrow and lip. The employee immediately went on sick leave and was on full-time sick leave for approximately 3 months, after which she returned to work part-time.
Shortly after the accident, the employer examined the desk and discovered that the reason it had collapsed was that the table leg had not been properly fixed, as the metal bracket that was supposed to hold the table leg in place was missing.
No negligence
The employee brought an action against the employer, alleging that the employer was responsible for the industrial accident and claiming compensation for pain and suffering. The employee believed that the employer had acted negligently by not taking measures, such as checking the condition of the desk during in-house moves and periodic inspections, which could have reduced the risk of an accident caused by safety defects in the desk.
The district court found that the employer had not acted negligently in connection with the layout of the workplace or the duty to supervise. According to the district court’s assessment, the desk had been in the office in question since 2013 when it was assembled by professional movers. In this context, the district court attached importance to the fact that the employer had used professional movers for the furniture assembly, and this had to be considered a normal and proper work process.
Furthermore, the district court noted that a desk is not of a nature that requires continuous or periodic checks for safety reasons. Finally, the district court found that the employer could not be blamed for not rectifying the defect in the desk sooner, as the defect was not readily visible.
The district court found in favour of the employer, and – in the appeal case – the high court upheld the judgment.
Norrbom Vinding notes
-
that the judgment illustrates that the nature of a work-related tool or work method can affect the extent of the employer’s duty to supervise, also in relation to how often and to what extent the employer should supervise; and
-
that it forms part of the assessment of whether the employer has acted negligently if the work procedures followed by the employer in connection with the organisation of the work, including the acquisition and arrangement of work-related tools, can be regarded as usual and appropriate.
The content of the above is not, and should not be a substitute for legal advice.
Forfattere