The 3 judgments that marked the PTI jurisprudence
Share this article
Contents
Share this article
The protection of lone workers is a legal obligation in France. Case law has played a key role in clarifying the contours of this obligation, notably through landmark decisions. This article looks back at three emblematic rulings that have shaped PTI jurisprudence.
November 12, 2020, no. 19-13.508: Inexcusable fault despite the presence of a DATI
An employee suffered a stroke while equipped with an emergency alert device (DATI). However, malfunctions in the rescue chain delayed the intervention of the emergency services for more than three hours. The Court of Cassation recognized the employer's inexcusable fault.
Legal consequences :
The employer was found guilty of inexcusable fault, which obliged him to pay full compensation for the damage suffered by the employee.
This recognition also leads to an increase in the pension paid to the employee.
Lesson learned:
It is not enough to simply set up a DATI. The employer must ensure thatthe entire emergency system is effective.
November 25, 2008, no. 08-81.995: Conviction for breach of safety obligation
A refrigeration worker died after working alone in a cold room without a warning device. The French Supreme Court upheld the employer's conviction for breach of his safety obligation.
Sentences passed :
The manager was given a 3-month suspended prison sentence and fined 3,750 euros.
The court ordered publication and posting of the decision.
Lesson learned:
The absence of an ITP in high-risk environments constitutes a serious breach of the employer's obligations.
December 5, 2000, no. 00-82.108: Manslaughter due to lack of warning equipment
In this case, an employee was working alone on a railway maintenance site without any means of communication. The absence of a warning system led to the employer's conviction for manslaughter in a fatal accident.
Sentences passed :
The manager of the subcontracting company received an18-month suspended prison sentence and two fines of 50,000 francs and 10,000 francs.
The managing director of the ordering company was given a suspended 1-year prison sentence and fined 30,000 francs.
- The court also ordered publication of the decision.
Lesson learned:
Both the subcontractor and the client are responsible for employee safety. They both have an obligation of result in terms of safety.
Sources and useful links
- Légifrance - https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr
- Cour de cassation - https://www.courdecassation.fr
- INRS (Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité) - https://www.inrs.fr
- DOCTRINE.fr - https://doctrine.fr
Did you like it?
Share it and discover other articles you might also like!
- Articles
- News
- Articles