The Dubai Civil Court has issued a ruling that mandates a restaurant and two of its supervisors to provide a sum of 500,000 dirhams to a worker who sustained a wrist-level amputation as a result of their right hand slipping into a meat-mincing machine during the course of their employment.
The plaintiff worker filed a complaint in the civil court, seeking a compensation of two million and 500 thousand dirhams for the various damages he incurred due to the accident, including physical, material, future, moral, and psychological harm.
He asserted that he was employed at the restaurant operating a meat grinding apparatus, and his right hand became entangled in the apparatus. Subsequently, a legal action was initiated regarding the incident, in which two of his superiors were found guilty of breaching their job responsibilities, resulting in harm to the worker who lifted the designated protective cover. In order to prevent the hand from accessing the moving components of the device, the safety sensor responsible for its protection is ineffective. Additionally, there is a lack of adequate training on safe work procedures and the associated risks due to the nature of the work. Furthermore, the device fails to provide sufficient warning mechanisms and indicators to alert workers about its inherent dangers, and there is a lack of supervision. The restaurant's supervision was sufficient to assure the implementation of safe work protocols, resulting in the complete amputation of his hand.
The Penal Court rendered a verdict in its presence, convicting the accused and imposing a fine of 10,000 dirhams on each of them. Additionally, the court sent the civil case to the appropriate court. The order was deemed final upon the issuance of a certificate by the Public Prosecution.
In his memorandum presented to the court, the plaintiff elucidated that the defendants' affiliation with the restaurant's owning company is firmly established. This is substantiated by the occurrence of the incident at the restaurant's headquarters, as well as the company's jurisdiction to exercise control, direction, and oversight over its convicted supervisors.
The forensic medical assessment confirmed that the 21-year-old worker experienced a total amputation of his right hand, resulting in a permanent handicap. The extent of the disability was judged to be around 55% of his overall strength. He filed a report stating that he experienced harm, which encompassed the deprivation of his bodily autonomy. He lacks both physical and psychological tranquility, necessitating reparation for physical injury. Furthermore, he experiences long-term impairments that hinder his ability to work, and his profound sorrow over the amputation of his hand, which cannot be adequately compensated by any monetary compensation.
Subsequently, the defendants presented a response memorandum to the court, whereby they requested the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff's primary involvement in the accident and subsequent injury was substantiated.
Following a thorough analysis of the arguments presented by the involved parties, the court elucidated in the merits of its decision that the evidence presented in the case papers and documents establishes that the second and third defendants were responsible for the occurrence of the accident. This was attributed to the worker's act of lifting the protective cover, which impeded his hand's access to the moving components, and their failure to furnish a safety sensor for the protection cover, thereby impeding its cessation. The device, upon being lifted, exhibits a deficiency in adequate warning mechanisms and indicative signage to alert workers to its inherent hazards. Additionally, the company's supervisory oversight is insufficient. It is worth noting that the criminal ruling pertaining to this incident holds jurisdiction within the court.
The plaintiff was awarded a compensation of 500 thousand dirhams by the civil court, considering factors such as the worker's age, the extent of damages incurred, and the resulting suffering experienced due to the accident. Additionally, an interest rate of 5% was applied from the date of the claim until the payment was made.
