Facts
On April 5, 1989, a fatal accident occurred on a construction site where a crane operator, A., employed by company X., was operating a mechanical shovel. The bucket filled with concrete he was lifting fell, hitting a worker who was killed. The investigation revealed that the machine's brakes did not function normally due to the lack of drying maneuvers after the rain. The crane operator knew that these maneuvers were necessary but did not perform them.
The court of first instance found A. and X. guilty of negligent homicide and sentenced them to suspended sentences. The Cantonal Court partially upheld A.'s appeal and reduced his sentence to a fine, but dismissed X.'s appeal, which was appealed to the SCC.
Considerations
The SCC examined whether the appellant, X., had committed an improper omission offense by not taking the necessary precautions to avoid the accident. To do so, it had to determine whether X. was in a position of guarantor, implying a duty of diligence, and whether this omission was in a causal relationship with the result.
The SCC recalled that the employer is civilly liable for damages caused by its employees and therefore has a legal obligation to ensure that its employees take the necessary precautions. However, it found that the crane operator knew what drying maneuvers he had to undertake when the machine was wet and that the absence of these maneuvers was the direct cause of the accident.
…