Relevance of the Case – Employee Financial Liability
The case analyzed reflects the practical application of the employee’s financial liability institution, regulated by Article 254 of the Labor Code, in situations where damage is caused by a culpable act committed by the employee during performance of the individual employment contract.
The court identified the essential conditions for engaging financial liability: existence of a real and proven damage; the employee’s illicit act; fault (culpa); and the causal link between that act and the damage. In this instance, negligent handling of the vehicle unit and lack of attention to road signage impose liability on the employee.
Also, the court correctly held that the liability is not covered by the “normal risk of the service” – the statutory exemption is not applicable in the event of culpability. The normal risk of activity represents those situations, events, or consequences that may ordinarily and predictably occur during professional activity, without these being blameworthy on the part of the employee. Practically, this refers to risks inherent in the nature and specific conditions of the work performed.
Facts Relevant in the Case
The claimant and the defendant entered into an individual employment contract, under which, as of 15.06.2020, the defendant was employed as a heavy goods truck driver. Subsequently, via two addenda to the contract, the defendant was assigned to international transport duties within the European Union.
During the relevant period, the defendant conducted an international transport between Denmark and France under a travel order and a transport agreement made between the claimant and a third-party partner. The vehicle driven by the defendant consisted of a tractor unit owned by the claimant and a semi-trailer belonging to the third-party partner.
The defendant caused an accident at a fuel station in France, damaging the station roof with the semi-trailer. As a result of this incident, the semi-trailer’s roof and its refrigeration system were damaged, which generated a series of repair costs.
According to the transport agreement between the claimant and the third-party partner, in case the damage is not covered by the carrier’s insurance, the partner’s insurance covers the damage provided that the carrier (here the claimant) bears the value of the excess (franchise) per incident. Thus, after the insurer paid the indemnity for the damage minus the excess, the third-party partner issued an invoice corresponding to the excess, which was paid by the claimant.
The claimant initiated legal action, seeking recovery of the damage from the defendant, under the employee’s financial liability regulated by Article 254 of the Labor Code.
Legal Aspects Held by the Court
The court found that all conditions for engaging financial liability of the defendant were satisfied:
- Illicit act – the defendant, through fault, struck the roof of the fuel station, ignoring road signs regarding the maximum permitted height (max. 3.7 m);
- Fault (culpa) – the defendant did not show diligence and prudence, violating road rules, as well as the service duties established in his job description;
- Material damage – demonstrated by repair documents and the invoice issued by the third-party partner;
- Causal link between act and damage – the damage occurred as a direct result of the illicit act.
The defendant’s defense, which argued that road signs were not visible and access was restricted in the area, was not proven and was contradicted by photographic evidence and Google Maps images, which showed proper signage and a fuel station designed specifically for large trucks.
The court held that the event does not fall under the normal risk of service (losses or damages inherent to production or activity carried out, which do not give rise to employee financial liability), but is the consequence of a culpable conduct. Therefore, the exemption from liability provided by Article 254, paragraph (2) of the Labor Code is not applicable.
Under these conditions, the court determined that, under financial liability, the defendant owes the claimant the amount corresponding to the insurance excess paid by the claimant following the accident caused by the defendant. It was established that the damage is real, quantifiable, attributable to the employee, and directly connected with his culpable act.
Separately, the court ordered the employee to bear amounts corresponding to the statutory penalty interest and to pay court costs, including attorneys’ fees and translation costs.
The employer was assisted by the Brisc Legal team of lawyers specialized in labor law. After the decision became final, the sums due were fully recovered via enforcement against the employee.