140 thousand dirhams compensation for a worker who fell from a rise

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation upheld an appeal ruling that fined Dh140,000 for breaching its functions and failing to provide the necessary protective measures to protect workers.This resulted in the injury of a worker as a result of his fall, and the court rejected the appeal filed by the company.

The details of the case are due to the attribution of the Public Prosecution to the company that it mistakenly caused the injury of the worker, as a result of violating the obligations imposed by her job assets for not providing the necessary means of protection to protect the victim from the dangers of work, which led to his fall from the top during the performance of his work.

The Court of First Instance had ruled that the accused company should be punished with a fine of 10,000 dirhams. The company objected to the ruling by way of cassation, while the prosecution filed a memorandum at the end of which it rejected the appeal.

The company called on the verdict issued against it, that it did not indicate the elements of the crime that condemned it, and does not evince the error attributed to it, as well as obliging him to pay the amount of 140 thousand dirhams to compensate the worker, although it was appealed and damaged its appeal, noting that the error is shared in the scope of criminal responsibility to impose The defendant does not evade responsibility, in the sense that the fault of the victim does not negate the responsibility of the accused.

The Court of Cassation, in its ruling, stated that the trial court is free to derive its conviction to prove the crime from any evidence that it reassures, as long as this evidence has its proper documents, and the court of first instance had the right to draw from the testimony of witnesses and other elements before it. , The image of the case, as convinced.

She pointed out that the application of the provisions of Islamic Sharia does not harm anyone, and the judgment had ruled the penalty of estimated archive, which is a penalty and compensation at the same time, and therefore the company's obedience to the judgment of the error is on a basis must be rejected, and the court rejected the appeal, and obliged the appellant to pay the fees and expenses Security deposit.