The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The boy was injured, the employer evaded, and they both paid a heavy price - Walla! Business

2021-02-24T09:31:16.852Z


A 16.5-year-old boy who was employed part-time suffered a serious injury to his hand due to a work accident. The employer evaded and even dropped the responsibility on him, but in the end the judge said his word in light of the evidence and ruled on very large compensation. Do you employ teenagers? You should be very aware of the regulations


  • Business

  • Accountability

The boy was injured, the employer evaded, and they both paid a heavy price

A 16.5-year-old boy who was employed part-time suffered a serious injury to his hand due to a work accident.

The employer evaded and even dropped the responsibility on him, but in the end the judge said his word in light of the evidence and ruled on very large compensation.

Do you employ teenagers?

You should be very aware of the regulations

Tags

  • work accident

Walla!

Business

Wednesday, 24 February 2021, 11:24

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on general

  • Share on general

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Email

0 comments

Although employing teens requires extra caution on the part of employers, we are witnessing countless violations in hiring teens some of which are even enforced by Labor inspectors, especially during the summer months, but the following story is unusual and demonstrates how far an employer is willing to go to evade compensation. .



This is a 16.5-year-old boy who was employed part-time at his neighbor's business, which sells kitchen appliances.

One day the boy and his friend were asked to throw huge, heavy glass plates into a garbage can that was 40-50 meters from the warehouse door where they were placed.

You do not have to be a safety and hygiene officer to understand that this can end in disaster and this is what happened: after he gambled the distance between the warehouse and the garbage can with the glass panel in his hand during the attempt to step on the sidewalk, the glass broke, fell on the market and caused him serious injury.

Good to know (promoted)

This button can save your life in a cardiac or cerebral event

To the full article

First and foremost - to purchase insurance coverage (Photo: ShutterStock)

Hundreds if not thousands of work accidents occur every year, but the big difference is that in this case the employer did not purchase insurance coverage in case his negligence leads to damage, or in other words - in case he stops being negligent, he will have to pay hundreds of thousands of shekels out of pocket.



According to the boy, who will be represented by Adv. Yoah Schechter, an expert in insurance and tort law, his employer did not bother to instruct him on how to carry a braces and did not explain to him the risks involved.

In light of the implied negligence and in view of the severity of the damage, a tort claim was filed in court.

The defendant neighbor did not deny the actual occurrence of the accident, but claimed that its circumstances were completely different since the person who caused it, was the boy himself, in his decision to kick hard in the glass and cause it to shatter.

He said he was a troubled boy.

He further claimed that instead of throwing the mirror in the trash, he placed it diagonally and sent his leg days for a back kick, out of a desire to smash to pieces, and while kicking, the mirror shattered and cut his leg.



As in any case in which a contradiction arises in the allegations, the court is required to rule on which of the versions is more convincing.

While the boy managed to solidify his claims, the plethora of contradictory and puzzling evidence from the employer left no room for doubt that the employer would do whatever he could to avoid paying compensation to the boy.

To prove his version, the boy summoned his friend with whom he worked together and witnessed an accident.

According to the friend, these were plates that were taller than him and of enormous weight.

The friend confirmed the prosecuting boy's version and said that "I heard the sound of the shattering, I looked at someone and saw the blood bursting from his leg."

How far is an employer willing to go in order not to pay an employee compensation?

Defendant for his part was unable to prove his version.

Although during his interrogation he demonstrated how the worker kicked glass, but when Adv. Schechter dived 'into the thickness of the beam', it was revealed that he did not see the accident at all and that it was only a hypothesis. Also, the interrogation revealed no trace of the documents signed by the defendant. In addition, the defendant's claim that the location of the injury to the employee's leg is inconsistent with the circumstances of the accident was rejected by the court, again, due to lack of support and was merely a hypothesis, or as the judge calls it, "examining allegations in ignorance."



‘Miraculously’ also the size of the mirror, which was initially rated by him as ‘small’, has changed.

In his affidavit, he states that it is about 'meters by meters approximately', while in his interrogation at the National Insurance Institute he testified that the size of the mirror is 80 cm wide and 8 meters high. When asked in his interrogation about these gaps in the versions of the mirror mentioned by him in various places, he replied : "I did not have a meter to measure, I say about ... I have no answer.

I said something like this and that. "



At the end of the day, the court was convinced that the version given by the defendant in the National Court of Justice is the more reliable version of the size of the glass panel, while the other later versions try to dwarf the height of the glass panel. Defendant's defense arguments.

Adv. Yoach Schechter (Photo: Yachz)

Do you employ teenagers?

Consider special regulations that you must comply with

The court found that on the face of it it appears that it is a heavy weight exceeding 12.5 kg as permitted by the Youth Act on its regulations, given the fact that it is glass. The court further found that the employer did not provide the boy with protective equipment, did not instruct him how to carry the glass and did not notice what was happening.



it should be noted that as a result of injury is shake disability to always work as well as a permanent expert court prosecutor period of temporary unfitness accumulated over four and a half years or so. the expert notes the opinion that the plaintiff will need physiotherapy and painkillers if needed. Moreover, Despite his disability, the boy enlisted in the army but did not complete full military service and was released after two years due to lowering his medical profile due to his medical limitations. In his affidavit, the plaintiff claims that after his release from the IDF and between 2015-2018, he tried to join various companies. More than a few single months.

In light of his condition, the court found that the plaintiff's overall functional disability, as an expression of the reduction in the employment opportunities he faces and with them the potential deprivation of his future earning capacity, at a rate of 30%.



In conclusion, the court found that the boy should be compensated in the amount of more than NIS 2 million, with about one and a half million to be paid by the National Insurance Institute and the balance to be paid by the employer out of his own pocket.



According to Adv. Schechter, "the case would not have ended in this way if very intensive work had not been invested here in gathering solid evidence and systematically refuting the allegations in the alma mater of the defendant who did everything in his power to try and evade payment of damages."

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on general

  • Share on general

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Email

0 comments

Source: walla

All business articles on 2021-02-24

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.