Skip to main content

Director Of Bankrupt Company Liable For Damage Suffered By The Employee

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania developed interpretation of provisions of the Tort law providing more guarantees to the employee injured at work in case when company (the employer) went bankrupt and extended regulations of company director liability. The Supreme Court found that in case of indirect liability (company is liable for the damages caused by its employees) and liquidation of such Company due to bankruptcy the damage incurred to injured person shall not be left because of Company bankruptcy. An employee who was injured at work shall have right to direct his request of damage compensation to the person who caused the damage. In this particular case it is the director of the Company. This interpretation is based on Principles of European Tort Law providing for liability for auxiliaries.
As to the merits of the case, the employee was injured at work and the director of the Company was found guilty for the criminal offence related to labor safety and failure to ensure safe conditions of work. The Company under the provisions of indirect liability was obliged to compensate the damage to the employee but the damage was not compensated because the Company went bankrupt. Therefore the injured employee requested liability of director of the Company to compensate damage. The director of the Company disputed his liability arguing that he is not the right defendant and that the liability to compensate losses ends with liquidation of the Company which is under indirect liability provisions liable for the damage caused by its employees.
To support mentioned interpretation the Supreme Court referred to provisions of recourse where the Company which compensated damage to the persons injured by fault of its employees shall have the recourse right to cover expenses it suffered. According to the Labor law regulations the employee shall compensate fully the expenses of the Company related to the compensation of the damage caused by its employees in case of criminal offence, therefore the Supreme Court found that the director who was found guilty for the criminal offence shall be liable for the damage caused thereby of injured employee in case when the Company (the Employer) goes bankrupt.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen
21 comments
Read more

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le
1 comment
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a
10 comments
Read more