Russia (bbabo.net), - For those who work, and we have the majority, it may be useful the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which refers to compensation for moral damage by the employer if his employee was injured at the workplace.
The problem of work injuries is very serious. Thus, according to statistics, last year there were 5,860 serious accidents at our enterprises alone. This is when an employee either died or became disabled. And although this figure is 4.2 percent less than a year earlier, the numbers are still scary. Well, those who did not suffer much at work - hundreds of thousands. In such cases, the employee must be paid compensation for damage to health. But after all, physical damage is always accompanied by moral. But questions arise with compensation for such harm. This is what the Supreme Court dealt with.
Now, the details of the case. Our hero went to court with a lawsuit against the employer for the recovery of lost earnings and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In court, he said that he worked as a shift worker-installer of pipelines. Once, while working, he fell from a height and fell. The cause of the accident was named in the documents - poorly organized work. The examination showed that the young man had lost 30 percent of his working capacity. And for some works, including his former one, he is "unsuitable".
It was after this that the young man demanded that the employer pay him a salary for the time of his illness and compensate for non-pecuniary damage. But the employer simply did not respond to this statement. As a result, the installer wrote a statement of his own free will. And went to court. The first instance partially satisfied his claim. The plaintiff estimated his non-pecuniary damage at 5 million rubles. But the court decided that 90,000 was enough for him. The appeal and cassation did not notice any violations. That's when the plaintiff went to the Supreme Court. And there they canceled all decisions that concerned moral compensation. For argumentation, the Supreme Court clarified the norms of the Labor Code. In particular, Article 21 of the Labor Code states that a person has the right to a workplace that meets state requirements, and in the event of an emergency, he must receive compensation, including moral compensation.
Article 212 of the Labor Code emphasizes that ensuring labor safety is the responsibility of the employer. And in article 237 of the same code it is said about moral harm. It is determined by agreement of the parties. If the agreement did not work out, the court is obliged to determine the amount of moral suffering. Article 151 of the Civil Code states that when determining the amount of compensation for moral damage, the court must take into account the degree of guilt of the offender and the physical and moral suffering of the employee. On this occasion, a special Plenum of the Supreme Court (No. 10 of December 20, 1994) was held. It was emphasized there that the amount of compensation for harm must take into account the requirements of reasonableness and fairness. The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which was quoted by the Supreme Court, also speaks of the same. The decision of the ECHR states that the calculation of the amount of payments for moral damages is a difficult task. There is no standard to measure pain, physical inconvenience, suffering and longing in money. And national courts must always give "sufficient reasons" to justify the amount of compensation.
Due to an injury, a person was deprived of the opportunity to work where he knows and can do everything
From all that has been said, the Supreme Court concludes that the articles of the law that deal with non-pecuniary damage establish only general principles for determining the amount of compensation. But the courts, when they decide how morally a person has suffered, must evaluate the specific illegal actions of the employer and correlate them with the severity of physical and moral suffering. In our case, setting compensation at 90,000 rubles, the courts limited themselves to a formal enumeration of the norms of the law. In the decisions of these courts, there is no justification why it is necessary to pay 90 thousand instead of 5 million rubles, which the plaintiff asked for. Nothing is said what circumstances influenced the determination of this particular amount.
bbabo.Net