In The Name Of God
Murder as a result of an accident at work (analysis of a case against the responsibility of the employer, the owner of the building and other persons)
By: Kioumars Sepehri
Introduction:
One of the ways to achieve the living rights of any country's legal system is to examine the cases and court rulings, how and with what interpretation the legal regulations are applied in relation to related issues, and how the rights and duties of individuals are determined. More than anything else, it should be sought in court cases. The issue of accidents, including accidents related to vehicles and work-related accidents, has many complexities and scope, and on the other hand, the labor law and relevant regulations have a special legal status. Has created, so it is appropriate to be more studied and researched by lawyers and experts. The complexity of the incidents determines the legal nature of the incident in terms of the responsibility of the persons involved, especially when not all of these individuals can be prosecuted under the general heading of "employer", adding to the difficulty of complying with the legislature. It is caused by various factors and some factors are outside the scope of labor and employment titles. Technically (expert) it is difficult to analyze the subject. The progress of the subject of discussion is one of these cases which is significant in several ways.
Topic one: The subject of the case and how the accident happened
Three people, Mr. P, S, and Mr., are jointly building apartments. After preparing the foundation for the building, the contractor will install the metal frame to a person whose profession is welding, called " (D) and stipulate in the contract that "the contractor is responsible for securing the lives of the workers and their equipment", and that the person has entered into a contract with the owner of the crane named "E" after performing a series of actions and making arrangements. Provides the crane for the construction of the skeleton, and the owner of the crane is sent to the workplace with the help of the driver and the device. The work begins, with the start and installation of the skeleton columns during the installation of the horizontal parts (bridges) of the building skeleton, with the impact of the upper part of the hook (rig opening) of the crane to one of the installed bridges (which is temporarily welded and It has been hit) and crashed into a piece of iron attached to the crane's hook, hitting the worker's head (the driver's assistant) standing in the work area. It resulted in his death while the welder and his agents were working. He added that the crane was driven by an authorized licensee and that both the driver and the driver's assistant (saw the accident) As a worker, the owner of the crane has been covered by social security. Also, one of the owners of the building has been the supervising engineer (with the relevant expertise and degree). The first is the owner and supervising engineer, the second is the welder and his workers, and the third is the crane owner and his agents (the crane driver's supervisor and Mac driver).
Topic 2: Expert theories
In order to determine how the accident happened technically and to determine the persons responsible for the incident, the court will refer the matter to an expert. The accident expert, after examining the case and considering the scene of the accident, will express his opinion. Driver of a crane while lifting an iron bridge by crane and negligence of the driver's assistance (accident) in establishing a place where there has always been a possibility of falling objects and also the lack of supervision of the accident's employer (owner of the crane) on the driver's correct performance and driver's assistance Knows and blames them 60%, 20% and 20%, respectively, for causing the accident. According to the owner of the crane, the matter will be referred to a three-member board of experts (two experts in the field of accidents at work and one expert in the field of construction) who will control and calculate the crane driver according to the environment of the crane tower. He pleaded not guilty to 30 percent of the charges, and found the welder to be 30 percent guilty because he had not completely welded some of the iron beams (bridges) installed (including the bridge that collapsed in the collision). The person in charge of the workshop, who was in charge of coordination and general supervision, blamed 40%, protesting the theory and its acceptance by the court. The five-member jury selects and comments on work-related accidents, and blames the owner of the crane (the employer) at 20 percent, the driver of the crane at 40 percent, and the welder at 20 percent in the accident, again to some of the plaintiffs. The theory of the five-member panel is being challenged, and the court is referring the case to an expert for the fourth time. The seven-member panel is composed of three experts in the field of construction and four experts in the field of work-related accidents. The delegation will comment on the two groups, and both groups will address the incident One of the mounted iron beams falls off on its own and hits the deceased, who was chaining the crane hook to another iron beam, and accordingly, both groups are responsible for the welder (60%). However, the Working Group of Accident Experts found another 40 percent responsible for the supervising engineer, who was also the head of the workshop. Have announced (from 5 to 15 percent).
Due to the fact that this panel of experts was wrong about the analysis of how the accident occurred and their theory was not acceptable in some ways, and with the protest of the supervising engineer and the welder, the court referred the matter to the nine-member panel of experts on accidents at work and The reference building discipline, whose theory was ultimately based on the responsibility of all factors, so that the 30% welder, the supervising engineer and the workshop manager 25%, the crane owner 20% (due to the use of chains instead of cables to connect the iron to the crane hook and Failure to use restraint rope when lifting iron and lack of training and supervision of workers), the crane driver himself due to Carelessness, lack of care and haste in the work at the rate of 15% and the late deceased (seen accident) due to settling in a dangerous place and under the load of the crane at the rate of 10%.
Topic 3: Some rules related to the case
In order to judge the readers more correctly and to better identify the responsible person or officials of the case, it seems necessary to review some of the regulations. There is no doubt that the subject of the case is considered to be work-related Labor and social security govern the case, and this may be a matter of course.
The victim (the victim) was the owner of the crane and took his salary from him and was covered by social security insurance.
Article 4 of the Labor Law defines a workshop as "a workshop where a worker works at the request of the employer or his representative, such as industrial, agricultural, mining, construction, transportation, passenger, service, commercial, manufacturing, public places, and so on." Like them ...
Article 2 of the law stipulates in the definition of a worker that: In terms of this law, a worker is a person who in any case finds a right to work, including wages, salaries, profit share and other benefits at the request of the employer. The same law considers the employer to be a natural or legal person who works at the request and at his expense against the receipt of the right to work.
Paragraph 8 of Article 2 of the Social Security Act defines an accident as follows: An accident is an accident under this law. It is not foreseen that it occurs under the influence of an external factor or factors as a result of an accident or sudden occurrence and causes damage to the insured body or mind. 60 The same law stipulates in the definition of work-related accidents: Work-related accidents are accidents that occur during the performance of duty and therefore for the insured, the purpose of the performance of the duty is all the time that the insured is in the workshop or institution. Depending on whether the building or its premises are working, it is time to go to the clinic or hospital or for dermatitis treatment. Ensuring rehabilitation and the time it takes for the insured to return home from work to the workshop are part of the task, provided that the accident occurred at the normal time of the return trip to the workshop, events that occurred for the insured while trying to save other insured persons. And help happens to them. It's an accident at work.
In the protection regulations of construction workshops in the first chapter, the definitions and regulations are as follows:
Definition of the employer in the construction workshop:
An employer is a natural or legal person who owns or owns a construction workshop and entrusts one or more types of construction operations to one or more contractors, or directly to one or more workers in his own construction workshop. The rules of labor law apply, which in the second case is the employer.
Employer definition in construction workshop:
An employer in a construction workshop is a natural or legal person who employs one or more workers in a construction workshop in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Law and on his own account, whether the principal contractor, the contractor is a part or the employer.
Definition of Supervising Engineer:
A supervising engineer is a natural or legal person who, according to the law of the building engineering and control system, has a license to work in engineering from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and, within his competence, is responsible for supervising all or part of construction operations.
Definition of work accident:
An accident at work, according to Article 60 of the Social Security Act, is an accident that occurs to a worker while on duty and as a result, causing damage to his or her body and mind.
Definition of the competent person:
In terms of this regulation, the competent person is a person who has an engineering or professional employment license from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development or a technical skills license from the Technical and Vocational Education Organization of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs in the relevant field.
Article 3 of this regulation stipulates:
The employer is responsible for enforcing the provisions of this regulation in accordance with Articles 91 (1) and 95 (2) of the Labor Law, and Article 4 states that whenever the employer entrusts the execution of all construction operations to a contractor from beginning to end, the contractor is responsible. The implementation of the provisions of this regulation will be in the workshop.
Article 5 of the bylaws stipulates:
Whenever the employer entrusts the execution of various parts of its construction operations to different contractors, each contractor will be responsible for enforcing the provisions of this regulation within the scope of his contract, and contractors working simultaneously in a construction workshop must Collaborate on the implementation of the above-mentioned regulations and the employer will be responsible for establishing coordination between them. Article 6 states: Each Contractor shall be responsible for enforcing the provisions of this Regulation within its Contract and the principal Contractor shall be responsible for monitoring and coordinating them. Was.
Article 7 on the duties of supervising engineers stipulates:
Whenever the supervising engineers observe any defects in the performance of the construction operation that may pose a risk of an accident, they shall immediately notify the employer or the relevant employers in writing, along with the necessary instructions and instructions, and copy it to The work and social affairs unit of the place and the authority issuing the building permit should submit it. The employer is obliged to immediately stop the work in all or part of the workshop that has been objected to and declared a danger, and to remove the workers from the danger zone. Did.
According to the definitions in this regulation and the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 and considering the provisions of the Labor Law, it seems that Article 3 of the Employer has been confused with the employer and it is correct that the responsibility for enforcing the regulations at the beginning and Absolutely the responsibility of the employer (according to the definition of the regulations) is not the employer, but according to the definition of this regulation is generally the contractor, and this employer is actually equivalent to the same employer mentioned in the labor law. Also, according to the law of compulsory insurance of construction workers approved in 1352: workers working in construction workshops, whether building or developing a building or renovating and destroying it, will be insured with the social security organizations against accidents resulting from work. Trade union system law approved in 2004, trade union members are obliged to follow the current laws and regulations of the country, including trade union, disciplinary, health, safety, technical protection and beautification of the workplace and instructions for pricing goods and services by legal authorities. The relevant party shall be notified, observed and enforced. According to Article 85 of the Labor Code, instructions that Approved by the High Council for Technical Protection and the Ministry of Health and Medical Education, it is mandatory for all employers, workshops and workers. According to Article 91 of this law, the employer or officials of the units mentioned in Article 85 of this law shall apply. Whenever an accident occurs as a result of non-compliance with the above-mentioned regulations by the employer or the unitary authorities, the employer or the said person shall be responsible for the criminal and legal aspects as well as the penalties mentioned in this law. 171 states: If the violation of legal obligations causes an accident that will lead to our complications in case of disability or death of the worker, the court is obliged to assign duties in addition to the punishments mentioned in this chapter, in accordance with the law.
Topic 4: Defending the lawyers of the plaintiffs
Three lawyers were involved in the case on behalf of the crane owner, the building owners and the supervising engineer and welder. While defending his client, the crane owner's lawyer defended issues such as the existence of a contract between the building owners and the welder, the work of the crane based on the clock and the welder's haste in the work and the complete lack of connection of some of the skeletal irons by the welder. The observer and prevention of dangerous work of the people working in the place and having a specialized certificate of the crane operator have pointed out and finally considered the case as one of the examples of murder in the legal verdict and considered each of the related cases as a kind of cause. They have also caused murder, so the request for a verdict based on the gathering of different causes and according to Article 365 of the Penal Code and the court.
The esteemed lawyer of the owners and the supervising engineer of the building also defended such as handing over the installation of the skeleton to the welder and accepting its responsibility by the said and the task of preparing the crane, and not observing caution and accuracy by the crane operator and having technical problems Despite this, the driver and his employer have used it. The existence of a working and employer relationship between the owner of the crane and the person who saw the accident (the victim) and his lack of communication with the building owners and the supervising engineer Between the murder of the worker, he raised the issue with the actions of the crane operator, and in terms of the verdict in the case, he acquitted his clients of the charges.
The author, who has been a lawyer for the welder, has raised the following issues in defense of his client:
A: An accident caused by the case of the case and the existence of a labor-employer relationship between the deceased and the owner of the crane and the employee's obedience to his employer technically And economically and legally (i.e., getting paid, under the order of the person who saw the accident), not following the technical instructions of the welder and his agents and acting independently of the crane operator and the driver's assistance (accident) and the skill and experience of the crane operator and The person who saw the accident, and the technicality of working with the crane, which was not under the jurisdiction of the welder and his agents.
B: Carelessness and carelessness of the crane operator, having technical defects of the crane that has made the driver's work more difficult and has caused him not to pay enough attention to the crane's loading and loading area (according to the available evidence), lack of supervisor's supervision of the crane Seeing his employer's shortcomings in forcing him to use safety devices, including helmets and not supervising their work according to labor law regulations and not having the duty of supervisor by the welder on the work of the crane operator and its agents and a kind of contract work of the crane owner. It was carried out by its supervisor.
C: It is the responsibility of the employer to be responsible for accidents at work under any circumstances, unless the employer proves that the accident is irreparable to himself and his agents, while in the present case the crane operator was directly involved in the accident resulting in death. And in principle, in terms of criminal law, it is a kind of steward and perpetrator in the case, and according to the acceptance of the accident (as explained) by the crane operator, regardless of labor regulations and social security and safety regulations, the accident is attributed. It is his responsibility, and the provisions of the Labor Law, especially Articles 2, 3, 4, 91, 95, 171 and Article 60 of the Social Security Law, absolutely give the employer copper. But knows.
D: The welder is not considered the employer and the employer, therefore, according to the provisions of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the protective regulations of construction workshops and Articles 91 and 95 of the Labor Law, if there is any responsibility in terms of general supervision of the employer and the executor of the building, The technical supervisor (executor) is not the welder who has been in charge of the execution of a part of the building, nor the whole of it as the general contractor who has committed the performance from the beginning to the end of the work, therefore the responsibility of accidents in the contract of execution of steel frame in terms of Criminal and protective regulations, which are subject to change and are not subject to change by the parties to the contract, are the responsibility of To employers and employees not reduce, which in terms of contractual relations and civil claims related to its real impact will be.
E: Although the accident is certainly a clear example of work-related accidents, and in work-related accidents the employer is generally responsible and accountable, but if we consider it without considering the rules of work and social security, depending on how Accidents and deaths are the responsibility of the crane operator in charge of the death and murder of the deceased, because the murder was caused by the crane rig, which was in his hands, and was stopped by his will, and another factor in it, at least in part. There was no direct involvement, it happened, and traditionally, murder is attributed to the act of the crane operator, not the act or omission of the act of others, and this incident is justified. Under these circumstances, it is traditionally a waste, not a discipline, and in this respect, according to the provisions of the Islamic Penal Code, the person in charge of the crane is responsible, not anyone else. It will be explained later.
Topic 5: court ruling
The esteemed trial court (Branch 22 of the Kermanshah General Court), hearing the defense of the plaintiffs and their lawyers, announced the end of the trial and, as described in the lawsuit No. 457-27 / 2/83, the following court shall rule: C, 3-e 4-B are accused of negligence and non-observance of safety points and non-observance of state systems leading to the unintentional murder of the late A. which is due to the complaint of the parents, the report of the police authority, local investigation The death of the Inspector General of the Department of Labor and Social Affairs, the announcement of the opinion of the Board of Experts, which also determined the degree of guilt of each of the accused and the deceased worker, but Pursuant to Article 365 of the Islamic Penal Code, which stipulates that whenever several people cause harm or damage to each other, they will be equally liable for damages, on the other hand, ijtihad is prohibited in front of the explicit text of the law. The above-mentioned deceased worker and worker were equally involved in the incident. According to Articles 294, 295, 302 and 304 of the Islamic Penal Code, each of the accused is sentenced to pay one fifth (Khoms in Persian) on the full ransom of a Muslim man to the parents of the deceased. They will be required to pay a Blood Money (Die in Persian) . Also in terms of the general aspect, by applying the act of the perpetrator to Article 616 of the Islamic Penal Code and by applying Article 22 of the Law on Injuries and Special Conditions, each of the accused will be sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred thousand Rials as a fine in exchange for imprisonment against the government. The verdict issued in person and within twenty days from the date of The notification can be appealed in the courts of appeal of Kermanshah province.
And with the review of the building supervisor and the welder, the case was filed in the Court of Appeals, and the court rejected the objection and the appeal by arguing that according to the opinion of nine experts, which indicates the guilt of the appellants and other convicts. It was not considered justified and the verdict of the court of first instance was upheld.
Topic 6: Criticism of the court's decision
The court's decision can be considered in several respects:
A. Considering the nature of the case and the necessity of distinguishing the rulings of accidents at work from some of the rules and principles and the causes of guarantee in Islamic criminal law:
According to what has been explained above, murder is certainly one of the cases and instances of murder as a result of work-related accidents, but what is the nature of murder is the subject of work-related accidents, i.e. whether it is a case of loss (3) or Examples of Cause (Tasbib in Persian) (4) or both or both require a detailed discussion that can be the subject of a dissertation. Here we can briefly say that some events may be examples of waste, as given the practice. The case of the crane in this case seems to be a case of waste, and this is the customary diagnosis of the case, because by voluntary action and without the intervention of another human being, m. Many work-related accidents can be traumatic in nature, and some accidents are in no way compatible with waste and trauma, meaning that if we try to adapt them to these rules, we will achieve results. That is 100% to the detriment of the workers, what is required by the provisions of the Labor Code, especially Articles 85, 88 (5), 89 (6), 91, 95 and 171, is that the Labor Law on accidents at work, the principle on The responsibility of the employer is set and the responsibility of the employer according to the labor law is a special responsibility other than the provisions of the Islamic Penal Code and in other words the rules of the labor law regarding the responsibility of the employer, special regulations that In some cases, we can only convict the employer based on that, and if we want to find the verdict in the case of the provisions of the Islamic Penal Code, we will not go anywhere, and the result will be the irresponsibility of the employer, but the case will be discussed. As mentioned above, the case seems to be a case of loss. In addition, the accident was caused by the voluntary action of the crane operator, because this act (moving the rig and its hook and chain) was under his control, which was caused by B. Attention has been paid to the accident, something like an accident by a car driven by the driver and the legislature wasted examples. On the other hand, at the time of the accident i.e after moving the crane's hook and hook by its guardian, the human agent was not mediated by another intelligence, which can be said that the direct relationship between the guardian's crane and the death of the victim was killed. In fact, the main culprit is the crane operator, and this is the customary discretion, and in any case he has been directly involved in the case, so in this respect the person in charge of the case is the same person and in terms of labor law regulations and according to Articles 95 and 184 of the applicant and his employer are responsible, so the case is not an example of discipline.
B. In terms of how the effective factors in the case work and the effect of the case and the identification of the responsible persons:
Considering the previous issues, the case is one of the cases of loss, not usurpation. It has not been. Although the court has considered the action and omission of the actions of the persons involved to be the cause, it does not seem that the cause has not occurred in practice and the matter is not one of the examples of Article 365 of the Islamic Penal Code, because:
First: Given that positive personal action and abandonment of other people's actions cannot be an example of a community of means, that is, from a conventional and logical point of view, it is not possible to assume the effect of their work together and at the same time, there is no doubt that each can The place itself is an independent cause.
Secondly, the effect of each of the perpetrators was not simultaneous and certainly one of them is the cause of the effect and according to the Islamic Penal Code, this person is responsible and not others (Article 346 of the Islamic Penal Code (7)) and apparently in the present case The impact of the crane operator's responsibility lies with others and is his responsibility, and he and his employer will be ultimately responsible for his employment relationship with his employer and the provisions of Articles 95, 171 and 184 (8) of the Labor and Accident Law. On the other hand, both in discipline and in loss, there must be an element of attribution, while in this case there is no relation to some of the accused. There is no such thing, and in this respect, the verdict seems to be flawed. It does not invalidate the law, in other words, expert theories in all cases cannot create the responsibility of individuals or ignore the principles governing civil liability.
In the end, it is worth mentioning that criticizing a vote does not mean criticizing and showing its legal weaknesses, but it is aimed at relying on the issues raised in it and designing scientific, technical and practical issues related to it, especially for experts. Young critics and their encouragement to think and research is more. In addition, more material has been written with the aim of raising the problems and complexities of some cases and incidents, and on some technical and legal issues, many things can be stated and points. It is a kind of fistful and in order to enlighten the minds of respected readers, it is hoped that it will be taken into consideration. Accomplished lawyers and punctual experts are working to complete it. However, if the grace of God Almighty is accompanied, it is intended that an article be prepared and presented on the nature of the murder and the damage caused by the work.
Footnotes:
Article 91 of the Labor Law: Employers and officials of all unit’s subject to Article (85) of this law are obliged to provide and provide the necessary equipment and facilities to the workers in the work environment in accordance with the approvals of the High Council for Technical Protection. To teach them how to use the above-mentioned devices and to supervise the observance of protective and hygienic regulations. The mentioned persons are also required to use and maintain personal protective and hygienic devices and to implement the relevant instructions of the workshop.
2. Article 95 of the Labor Law: The responsibility for the implementation of technical and occupational health regulations and regulations shall be borne by the employer or the heads of the subject units mentioned in Article (85) of this law. Sometimes due to non-compliance with the said regulations by the employer or unit officials, If an accident occurs, the employer or the person in charge is criminally and legally liable, as well as the penalties set forth in this law.
3. Difference according to the definition of Article 317 of the Islamic Penal Code: It is stipulated that the crime was committed directly by the victim himself.
4. Prejudice According to Article 318 of the Islamic Penal Code: Fighting in crime means that the person causes the loss or crime against another and does not commit the crime directly, so that if there was no crime, it would not be like digging a well and someone would fall into it. And be injured.
5. Article 88 of the Labor Code: Natural or legal persons who manufacture or import and supply and supply machinery are obliged to observe appropriate safety and protection measures.
6. Article 89 of the Labor Code: Employers are required to perform the necessary tests by laboratories and approved centers before the operation of machines, devices, tools and equipment whose testing is deemed necessary in accordance with the regulations approved by the High Council for Technical Protection. Excellent technical protection and keep the relevant documents and send a copy of them to the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs for information.
7. Article 364 of the Islamic Penal Code: Whenever two people are involved in a crime, the person whose work is affected by the crime before the effect of another cause will be a guarantor, such as one of the two people digging a well. Another puts a stone next to it and the passer-by falls into a well due to a collision with a stone. The one who left the stone is the guarantor and nothing is the responsibility of the digger, and if the action of one of the two is aggressive and the other is non-aggressive, only a few people are guarantors. will be.
8. Article 184 of the Labor Code: In all cases where there is a violation of the rights of legal entities, the proverbial reward is paid and the claim and damages must be paid from the property of the legal entity, but criminal liability including imprisonment, fine or both. The managing director or managing director is the legal entity whose violation has been ordered and the punishment will be imposed on the said officials.