The 4th panel of the TRT-MG granted to an employee injured while falling off the roof where he worked compensation for moral and material damages. Unlike the Grade 1 decision, the judges understood that both the employer as the borrowing firm of services, had faulted in the accident, as workers charged more flexibility in the exchange of tiles. To meet this requirement, he released his seat belt, and he fell from a height of 22 meters.
Analyzing the case, the rapporteur found that the claimant suffered a work accident in December 2006, when exercised mounting helper functions in a reform in the borrowing firm of services. The drop caused her head injury, brain injury, and fractures at various bodies, including the face and the basin.
According to the official expert, after the accident, the worker began to show behavioral disorders, such as aggression and social isolation and developed a drinking table. He spent the floor dragging a leg, took several scars and deformities of the ankle, and has lost strength in his left hand, featuring total and permanent incapacity for work. "The testimony of the witness leaves no doubt that the claimant did not use a seat belt at the time of the accident at work, due to the charge for the service claimed to be powered on the roof, which implied the permanence of a worker with the seat belt disconnected from the steel cable, so that it could move in a more agile way, "said the rapporteur of the appeal, called Judge Paulo Mauricio Ribeiro Pires. Were not provided all necessary protective equipment, such as ratchet case, that would allow services to be performed more quickly, as did business, but surely for the worker. Process documents to prove the completion of training of security measures. However, there is no point the course without providing appropriate equipment for worker protection. Therefore, to the magistrate, not remaining questions of guilt of the defendants in the accident. The judge also noted that the Regulatory Standard 18 of Ordinance No. 3,214 / 78, which deals with working on roofs and roofs, was violated.
With these fundamentals, called judge sentenced the employer to pay compensation for moral, physical and aesthetic damage in the amount of R $ 40,000.00, and property damage, in the form of monthly pension for life, since December 2006, amounting to R $ 520.00, including vacations and 13th salaries plus wage increases category. Having benefited from the services provided by the employee, and have contributed to blame for the accident, the borrowing firm was convicted of subsidiary undertaking to pay the labor deferred installments.
Source : professoradeildocosta
0 ความคิดเห็น:
Post a Comment