Elements of construction of the accident at work

The problem of investigating causes, determining the circumstances of accidents at work, and compensation for this is regulated two branches of law: labour and social security laws. Problems related to accidents at work continue to raise concerns for employers. These doubts are exacerbated by extensive judicial jurisprudence, which is characterized by great causisticism. This study aims to present the main elements of the institution of the accident at work, along with the latest trends in case law.

1. Introduction

Provision Article 3(1) Act on 30 October 2002 on social insurance for accidents at work and occupational diseases 1 (Further: the Accidents at Work Act) considers an accident at work an event which simultaneously meets the following criteria: it is sudden, caused by an external cause, causing injury or death, and remains in connection with work.

All these conditions must be met together. The most important, from the perspective of practice, are at the same time two elements of the definition of accidents at work – injury and externality of the cause.

According to Article 2(13) The acts on accidents at work by ‘injuries’ should be understood to mean damage to the tissues or organs of a person due to external factors.

Initially, the Supreme Court spoke 2 for a strict interpretation of the ‘refuse’, stressing that first A glance is about damage to the body (tissue, organ) resulting from injury. In other words, it is about the formation of a specific tissue breach, a human organ under the influence of an external event.

In a later ruling from 7 June 2011 3 However, it was stressed that the word "damage" in the definition of injury does not have one meaning (signature) in Polish, even when it refers to tissue or body organ. The damage is also an overload or tissue breach, understood as a deterioration in the health of the worker.

This means that, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, damage to the tissues or organs of a person according to the definition of injury should be understood widely, and therefore as any change in the body – not only those of anatomic nature, but also those that caused functional disorders of the body, including mental disorders.

This gives rise to the distinction of physical and mental injury. The rationale for such a view is also the functional interpretation of the definition of injury, which should include any changes in the health condition causing a disability of the body and resulting from work.

This position was reflected in the judgment of the Supreme Court of 23 September 2014 4 .

2. Announce events

Announce the incident causing the accident is associated with an unexpected, unexpected, sudden event. The message refers to the time of operation of the external cause and means the time(s) of the external event.

On the other hand, the jurisprudence clarified that the condition of ‘emergency’ is met if the factor affecting the human body lasts no longer than one working day 5 . It should be made clear that the announcement can only be made until the event takes place, and therefore the short-term impact of the external factor.

But the qualification of the cause of this event is externality and directness of impact 6 .

It is therefore not an accident at work where the effects of the long-term effects of the harmful agent (e.g. toxins) present at the workplace where the worker is employed are suddenly revealed. This criterion therefore allows to separate the accident at work from long-term events, i.e. occupational diseases.

3. External cause of the event

The external cause of the incident is the cause of the accident, which must come from outside the body of the affected worker. This cause must have a certain effect in the form of injury or death of an employee. However, the Act does not require that the source of injury or death is only and exclusively one reason.

Such a interpretation allows to cover the range of so-called complex causes when the external factor is linked to factors already in existence in the worker's body, e.g. a heart attack – as a sign of cardiac failure – but caused directly by excessive fatigue 7 .

If fatigue is not excluded as the cause of the accident, then it must be concluded that the causes of the accident may consist of accumulation for a certain period of time (and not at the moment) of adverse factors which, with additional adverse conditions such as stress, cause a heart attack injury.

Similarly, the knowledge gained from the health and safety training courses is similar. If they are not carried out by the employer, they cause an (permanent) inappropriate behaviour at the workplace that may cause the accident. The external event qualification shall also be attributed to compulsory medical examinations.

Admission to work without carrying out checks or on the basis of an out-of-date certificate is due to an accident, as the worker does not have adequate protection against harmful working conditions in the health condition 8 .

On the other hand, with the combined causes of accidents at work, this external factor should be decisive for the recognition of an event as an accident at work.

4. Relationship to work

The relationship with the work performed is a normative relationship and is fulfilled when the event occurred:

• 1) during or in connection with the performance by the employee of ordinary activities or commands of the superiors;
• 2) during or in connection with the performance of activities by the employee for the benefit of the employer, even without instruction;
• 3) while the employee is at the disposal of the employer on the road between the employer's premises and the place of performance of the obligation resulting from the employment relationship.

The rules characterise the relationship widely – as a functional relationship with work, and these circumstances are included in the form of an alternative. It is therefore sufficient to provide evidence that the injury or death occurred as a result of the accident. one from several specified circumstances. However, it is not excluded that an employee can, by his behaviour, break this relationship with work, e.g. when injury or death occurred at the workplace, but at the time of the theft.

It is interesting in this context that the Supreme Court finds that the performance of activities for and for the benefit of an entity other than the employer may be in a temporary and local relationship with work, but is not a performance of activities for the benefit of the employer. It therefore breaks the functional relationship with work and does not meet the characteristics of an accident at work 9 .

5. Normal business activities or instructions

Normal activities are any activity which the worker performs on or outside the workplace. Their scope may arise from the basis for establishing an employment relationship, e.g.

a contract of employment, as well as from the obligations conferred on the employee by the employer on the basis of Article 94(1) Act on 26 June 1974 Labour Code 10 (Further as: k.p.). This scope will also cover activities which the employee performs on an ongoing basis in the course of his work.

The orders of the superiors shall be understood as any command of the superiors to carry out duties arising from the employment relationship, even if they do not concern normal activities.

The accident, which occurred when the employee remained at the disposal of the employer on the road between the employer's premises and the place of performance of the obligation resulting from the employment relationship, retains a relationship with the work.

The last circumstance concerns the situation where an event occurs during the movement between the employer's premises and the place where he will perform his work. This scope does not cover an accident that occurred, for example, on the way from the place of residence to the place of work.

6. Summary

The fan of elements forming the institution of accidents at work is generally a complex phenomenon. Although the rules are designed in a relatively precise way, the case law sometimes puts quite revolutionary thesis, most often beneficial to the worker.

This seems to be driven by the particular protection of human health and life, which constitutes one from the main values to be protected not only by labour law, but also by the whole legal system. This does not change the fact that ongoing proceedings should not be monitored on an ongoing basis, which can bring many interesting conclusions in the future, which form the basis for critical or acceptable assessments.

____________________________________________

1 Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1205.

2 Judgment of the Supreme Court of 9 June 2009, reference no. II PK 318/08.

3 reference no. II PK 311/10.

4 reference no. II UK 558/13.

5 Judgment of the Supreme Court of 30 June 1999, reference no. II UKN 24/99.

6 Judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 July 2001, reference no. II UKN 465/00.

7 The resolution of the SN 9 April 1968, reference no. III UZP 1/68.

8 Judgment of the Supreme Court of 18 August 2009, reference no. I PK 18/09.

9 Judgment of the Supreme Court of 14 December 2009, reference no. II PK 108/09.

10 Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1495.