As a result of the company's negligence in providing the necessary safety precautions

100 thousand dirhams in compensation to a supervisor who was injured in the eye

The "appeal" raised the compensation amount and obligated the company to pay the expenses.

Archives

The Court of Appeal in Abu Dhabi ruled to amend a ruling of the Court of First Instance, requiring a company to pay its operating supervisor an amount of 50 thousand dirhams as compensation for his injury during work with a permanent disability in the right eye, as a result of his negligence in providing the necessary safety precautions, and the court decided to increase the amount of compensation to 100 Thousand dirhams.

In detail, the supervisor filed a lawsuit against the company, demanding the appointment of a specialist doctor to explain his injury and the one who caused it, explain the damages he suffered, and oblige it to compensate him for these damages.

He pointed out that he works as an operations operator for the company, and as a result of his negligence in providing the necessary safety precautions, he was injured in his eyes as a result of the rush of incendiary chemicals into his face from the mouth of a stopcock, and water was poured over the place of injury due to the lack of first aid, while the company pushed the court not having jurisdiction to hold jurisdiction For the labor court.

The coroner's report showed that the plaintiff’s injuries include chemical burns in the right and left eyes and its complications and blurred vision, indicating that the condition is not stable and does not have a definitive character with regard to the eyes, and is still under medical supervision and will undergo surgical interventions.

A court of first instance ruled that the company must pay the plaintiff 50 thousand dirhams and the expenses, based on what the forensic doctor has proven wrong with the responsible company employee, who caused damage to the plaintiff and deserves compensation.

This court was not accepted by the company, so it appealed the judgment and requested its annulment, and the judiciary rejected the case in the face of it because there was no error before it, indicating that the operating order was directed to another employee and not the plaintiff who volunteered to help his colleague and took the initiative to open the prison mouth without being careful for that.

Whereas the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal against the ruling, demanding that the case be returned to the forensic doctor to express his opinion on the documents he had submitted, and the award of compensation for him in light of what is proven in the report, and he mourned on the judgment the lack of proportionality of the amount judged to the damages he suffered, and the Court of Appeal decided to join the two appeals .

The court stated, in the merits of the ruling, that the appealing company did not provide evidence that the appellant committed the mistake that led to his injury, and that the operating order was not directed at him, nor did it provide evidence of the availability of security and safety means.

She explained that the forensic doctor's report showed that the plaintiff had a permanent disability, represented by permanent disability in the right eye, about 20% of its original nature, indicating that by taking into account the injuries and the grief and sorrow of the plaintiff, following his injury and the treatment he needs, immediately and in the future, the court sees an increase in the case. Using a combination of reparations

The court ruled to amend the appealed ruling and obligate the company to pay the appellant 100,000 dirhams in compensation, and also bind the company.

The

coroner's report showed that the prosecutor had a permanent disability of 20% in the right eye

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news