Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation condemned one of the companies for causing the death of a worker due to a failure to provide the required safety means for protection and ruled to support the decision to pay 200,000 dirhams to the heirs of the deceased, issued by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal.
The details of the case go back to the receipt of a complaint from a government hospital that an Asian worker was injured. He was doing work at the company's site where there were concrete blocks he was loading, which led to his being hit by an iron hanging in the concrete below his eye and causing his death.
The Public Prosecution charged the company with the legal representative of the company to cause a mistake in the death of the victim as a result of violating the laws and regulations by not providing the necessary security and safety measures to protect against the dangers of work, To do the work, resulting in the death of the victim.
The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance sentenced the company convicted of the crime of causing a mistake in the death of the victim and sentenced him to a fine of 5000 dirhams, and to pay the heirs of the deceased 200,000 dirhams and to charge them with judicial fees. The company appealed the judgment. By rejecting and supporting the appeal.
The appeal included that the victim was solely responsible for his personal fault, that the torturer bore no responsibility for the accident, that the victim had improperly removed the iron bars, that the responsibility for the rape was null and that it had not been committed Any mistake that led to the death of the victim, which is the defect of the contested judgment, and must be revoked and referral.
In its ruling, the Court of Cassation indicated that it had concluded that the accused had caused a mistake in the death of the victim, as a result of her violation of the laws and regulations for the provision of safety means necessary to protect against work hazards, Because of the fact that the fault of the victim does not raise the responsibility of the accused, but rather mitigates it if there is a common mistake in its proper meaning. It does not absolve the accused of responsibility unless the circumstances of the incident indicate that the fault of the injured person is the first factor in causing the damage. He was hit, and it was so heavy that I Sink administrator error.
The court concluded that there is a causal relationship between the accused's act and the result that led to the death of the victim. The obituary is not merely an objectious argument in the court of the subject from the power of his discretion. The entire appeal is unfounded, and the court ruled that the appeal should be rejected. With the order to confiscate the insurance.