While this mandate is not expressly stated in practice, but the above judgments, noting employer’s failure to provide adequate training, equipment, overseer efforts, etc., as the bases to negate the injured-employees’ own negligence, is a de facto adjustment to the applicability of comparative negli
I. Background
Article 217, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code prescribed the application of comparative negligence; “if the injured party’s negligence contributed to the cause of, or aggravation to, his injuries, the court may reduce or eliminate compensation accordingly.” As such, in cases involving occupational injuries, where the injured-employee’s own negligence helped to cause or aggravate the subject injury, the court may reduce or eliminate the recovery amount accordingly.
But, in some observed occupational injury cases, the court has ruled against the employer despite evidence of employee’s comparative negligence. The court focused on facts such as failure to provide adequate safety and/or hygiene training, failure to provide equipment thereto, inadequate overseer efforts, or XXX , etc. Below is a compilation of related cases; summary and analysis included.
III. Summary Analysis
Comparative negligence, as prescribed in Article 217, along with its analogical application (cases involving employee’s unique circumstances), at least doctrinally, should be applicable to reduce or eliminate recovery in occupational injury cases.
But, the Civil Code assumes people as reasonably equal and rational subjects and/or parties. However, an employer-employee relationship is uniquely different from the ordinary civil case. As such, it is doubtful if the standard rules of the Civil Code can be wholly applied to occupational injury cases without appropriate adaptations. The author believes that, due to the unique relationship between an employer and his/her employees, there are likely limitations to the applicability of comparative negligence as prescribed under Article 217. Further, the determination of injured-employee’s negligence will likely also be subjected to considerations of the unique employer-employee relationship.
While this mandate is not expressly stated in practice, but the above judgments, noting employer’s failure to provide adequate training, equipment, overseer efforts, etc., as the bases to negate the injured-employees’ own negligence, is a de facto adjustment to the applicability of comparative negligence analysis. These judgments considered the purpose of employee-protection, the employer-employee relationship, and adjusted accordingly.
