Conviction for Violation of Regulations on Accident Prevention for Roof Work

Facts

The case concerns a fatal work accident that occurred on September 4, 1985 in Glarus. The appellant [B.] had erected a construction scaffold for plumbing and roofing work on a commercial building. As no work was to be carried out on the roof itself, a scaffold walkway with a tightly closed board covering below the roof eaves was omitted. The worker S. fell from the top scaffold walkway, a distance of approximately 12 meters, and died at the accident site.

The Police Court of the Canton of Glarus convicted the employer K. of negligent homicide and imposed a fine of 500 Swiss francs, and the appellant [B.] of negligent homicide and endangerment through violation of the rules of construction science, imposing a fine of 1,000 Swiss francs. [B.] appealed to the High Court of the Canton of Glarus, which acquitted him of guilt and punishment. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Glarus then filed a federal nullity appeal with the request to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the lower court for the conviction of B.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court states that the non-compliance with the regulations on technical measures to prevent occupational accidents issued pursuant to Art. 83 of the Accident Insurance Act (UVG) generally indicates a breach of the duty of care. According to Art. 14 of the Ordinance on the Prevention of Accidents in Work on and on Roofs (VO), a scaffold walkway with a tightly closed board covering, i.e., a protective wall on the fall side, must be erected approximately 1 meter below the roof eaves for work on the eaves (such as replacing the roof gutter), or other measures at least equally effective must be taken.

The High Court had argued that according to Art. 15 VO, the erection of a scaffold walkway could be waived, as no actual work on the eaves was required. However, the Federal Supreme Court disagrees with this view, as according to the clear wording of Art. 14 VO, the replacement of the roof gutter is to be classified as work on the eaves.

The arguments put forward by the High Court, that the scaffold used met the safety requirements and that the SUVA…