magistrsko delo
Maja Vogrin (Author), Darja Senčur Peček (Mentor)

Abstract

Področje varnosti in zdravja pri delu je področje, ki je podrobno urejeno tako na mednarodni ravni kot tudi na ravni prava Evropske Unije. S prenosom številnih direktiv v nacionalno pravo in pri upoštevanju še določenih konvencij z omenjenega področja imajo tako delodajalci kot tudi delavci določene obveznosti na podlagi Zakona o varnosti in zdravju pri delu (ZVZD-1), ki jih morajo pri izvajanju svojega dela upoštevati. Predvsem jima je skupna obveznost, da morata poleg organizacije oziroma skrbnega opravljanja dela, skrbeti tudi za varnost in zdravje (drugih) delavcev v delovnem procesu, morebitne nevarnosti in pomanjkljivosti pa odpraviti oz. v primeru, da gre za delavca, jih mora ta nemudoma javiti svojemu nadrejenemu. Vendar v praksi prihaja do kršitev predpisov s področja varnosti in zdravja pri delu, tako s strani delodajalca kot tudi delavca. Inšpektorat Republike Slovenije za delo (IRSD) v svojih letnih poročilih ugotavlja številne kršitve na področju ustreznosti izjave o varnosti z oceno tveganja, ki je delodajalčev krovni interni akt za zagotavljanje varnih in zdravih delovnih razmer. Poleg teh so po ugotovitvah IRSD pogoste kršitve s strani delodajalca med drugimi še kršitve glede zdravstvenih pregledov delavcev. V sodni praksi pa je mogoče zaslediti številne sodbe, kjer odškodninsko odgovarja delodajalec za kršitve glede delovne in osebne varovalne opreme ter kršitve določb o prepovedi trpinčenja. Pri pregledu sodne prakse se kot pomembno kaže vprašanje, kdo odgovarja za nastalo škodo delavca v primeru, da gre za "izposojenega" delavca drugemu izvajalcu ali podizvajalcu del na gradbiščih. Za odgovor na to vprašanje je potrebno ugotoviti obstoj odgovornosti "dejanskega" delodajalca, možna pa je tudi kumulacija odgovornosti oz. solidarna odgovornost več oseb. V sodni praksi je najti tudi primere, v katerih sodišča upoštevajo pri nastanku škode tudi delavčev soprispevek, kadar ta ravna v neskladju s predpisi varnosti in zdravja pri delu. Pravila odškodninskega prava jasno določajo, da kdor je povzročil škodo, jo mora tudi povrniti. V teh primerih gre potemtakem za deljeno odgovornost delodajalca in delavca. Sodišča presojajo obstoj odškodninske odgovornosti delodajalca kot tudi delavca po splošnih pravilih civilnega prava, torej na podlagi pravil Obligacijskega zakonika (OZ). Pri tem morajo biti za obstoj krivdne odškodninske odgovornosti izpolnjene kumulativne predpostavke civilnega delikta, to so protipravno dejanje, škoda, vzročna zveza ter krivda. V primeru, da gre za objektivno odgovornost, pa je podlaga za njen obstoj, da delodajalec opravlja nevarno dejavnost ali, da nevarnost izvira iz stvari same. Delodajalec se bo lahko razbremenil objektivne odgovornosti zgolj v primeru, da so podani elementi za višjo silo ter da je nastala škoda nastala izključno zaradi ravnanja tretje osebe. V sodni praksi se uporaba določbe o razbremenitvi odškodninske odgovornosti uporablja restriktivno. Delodajalec ima tudi možnost, da svojo odgovornost, v primeru nastanka odškodninskih zahtevkov delavca, do določene višine tudi zavaruje. V primeru, da pa delodajalec krši predpise varnosti in zdravja pri delu, s tem ko ne zagotovi zadostnih varnostnih ukrepov ter zdravstvenih pregledov delavcev, bo lahko odškodninsko odgovoren tudi Zavodu za zavarovanje Slovenije (ZZZS) in Zavodu za pokojninsko in invalidsko zavarovanje (ZPIZ). Ta bosta imela zoper delodajalca regresni zahtevek oz. bolje rečeno personalno subrogacijo za povrnitev nastalih stroškov zavodoma.

Keywords

varnost in zdravje pri delu;odškodninska odgovornost delodajalca;odškodnina;deljena odgovornost;regresni zahtevek;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: M. Vogrin]
UDC: 331.228(043.3)
COBISS: 5777963 Link will open in a new window
Views: 1185
Downloads: 252
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: Employers liability for breach of health and safety at work regulations
Secondary abstract: The safety and health field is a field, that's regulated in detail (in depth), on the international level as well as on the level of the European Union. With the transfer of numerous Directives into the national law and with regards to certain conventions from the mentioned field have employers' as well as employees' certain obligations on behalf of Health and Safety Act (ZVZD-1), that they have to oblige when doing their work. They have in common especially the obligation to, apart from organizing or doing their work dutifully, the duty to take care of health and safety of (other) employees' in their work process, and remove possible dangers and deficiencies or in the case of the employee to immediately report those to his superior. However, in practice breaches of health and safety regulations do occur, on the employers as well as the employees site. The Work inspectorate of Republic of Slovenia (IRSD) is finding in their yearly reports numerous breaches on the field of suitability of the safety statement with the risk assessment, that's the employers crown internal act for ensuring safe and healthy work conditions. Besides those are on behalf of the findings of IRSD common breaches of the employer amongst others also breaches regarding the medical check-ups of the employees'. In the court practice it's possible to find numerous cases, where the employer is liable for the breaches in regards to the work and personal security equipment and breaches of the regulations that prohibit mobbing. By the overview of the court practice is as important shown the question, who's responsible for the employee's damages in case of a "borrowed" employee to other contractor or subcontractor for work on building sites. To answer this question one must conclude the existence of liability of the "actual" employer. In regards to the liability, cumulation of liability or solidary liability several persons is also possible. In the court practice is also possible to find cases, where courts do take into account to the occurrence of the damages the employee's contribution, when he acts in disharmony with the health and safety regulations. Liability rules clearly state, that whoever causes damages, shall also repair them. In those instances, are therefore partially liable the employer and the employee. Courts judge the existence of liability of the employer as well as the employee by the general rules of civil law, so on the basis of the rules of the Civil Code (OZ). According to that have to be for the existence of the culpability be cumulative fulfilled assumptions of the civil offense, that are unlawfulness, damage, causal connection and guilt. In case of strict liability is the cause for its existence, that the employer provides a dangerous service or that the danger origins from the object alone. Employer will be free of his liability only in case of the presence of the elements of the higher force or that the damages were caused solely because of the action of a third person. In court practice is the use of the regulation about employer's relief of liability restricted. The employer has as well the option, in case of emergence of an employee's compensation claim, to insure to certain high his liability. In case, where the employer breaches health and safety regulations, by not providing enough safety measures and medical check-ups for the employees', he can be held liable also against the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia (ZZZS) and the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia (ZPIZ). Both will have against the employer a recourse claim or better said a personal subrogation for the return of damage caused to the institutes.
Secondary keywords: health and safety at work;employers' tort liability;liability;shared liability;recourse claim;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 69 f.
ID: 11219670