HOW FAR THE EMPLOYER’S SPHERE OF CONTROL EXTENDS IN HUNGARY, ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT?

26 April 2024

Under Hungarian labour law, the employer may be exempted from compensating the employee for damage caused in connection with the employment relationship if the damage was caused by circumstances beyond the employer’s control. But how far does the employer's control extend, and does it really have to take every eventuality into account, even the most unpredictable? In its recent decision, the Hungarian Supreme Court addressed this question.

Facts

The claimant was employed by the defendant employer as a truck driver.

The employee was transporting raw, salted beef to Italy and spent his resting period in the cab of the truck in a truck stop. During the evening his leg was bitten by an insect.

During the employee's journey home, the employer asked him several times to see a doctor about the sting, but the employee refused and when he arrived home his health deteriorated as a result of the sting. He was eventually treated in intensive care for a long time and was on sick leave for 8 months.

The employee brought a claim against the employer for compensation for loss of income and non-pecuniary damage on the grounds of the work-related.

The employer sought dismissal of the claim on the following grounds

• the accident, i.e. the insect bite did not occur in the context of the employment relationship because the employee was taking his rest period;
• the employee's injury was caused by a circumstance beyond the employer's control which it could not have foreseen and could not reasonably have been expected to avoid or prevent;
• the damage was caused by the fault or negligence of the employee or by his failure to fulfil his obligation to prevent the damage.

First and second instance judgement

The Court of First Instance upheld the claim for the most part.

It held that the employee had proved that his injury arose in the context of the employment relationship and had explained that the accident was within the employer's control, given that the organisation of the work was also within the employer's control.

However, it disagreed that the injury was caused solely by the employer's negligence, it stated that the employee's negligence could have contributed to its occurrence.

The court of second instance dismissed the employee’s claim.

Although it was established that the damage was connected with the employment relationship, the causal factor was beyond the employer's control.

It stated that the insect bite was a circumstance over which the employer had no control and no possibility of influencing it, and that even if there were any deficiencies in the safety of the work, they could not be linked with certainty to the harmful circumstance.

The employer had no reason to expect the insect bite, since

• even the literature does not know of any case where a human has been bitten by this kind of insect,
• the raw, salted beef does not attract most insects, and
• the transport was carried out in a closed, flatbed truck, which further prevented the insects from flying in.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Hungary

In accordance with the Hungarian labour law[1], regarding the employer's liability for damages, the employer may excuse himself based on the fact that the damage occurred in consequence of unforeseen circumstances beyond his control.

The Supreme Court did not agree that the employer had successfully excused itself from liability for damages.

The Supreme Court referred to its previous decisions[2] and stated that, in general, any activity or circumstance in view of which the employer had the possibility, or even the duty, to prevent the damage is within the employer's control.

The employer had control over the entire truck during the rest period, as it was aware that the employee was spending his rest period in the vehicle since he had not been provided with separate accommodation during the journey and that it was in the employer's interest to keep the employee close to the load during the journey to guard it.

Based on the above, the Supreme Court held, on the one hand, that it was irrelevant that the insect bite took place during the employee's rest period, since this period also fell within the employer’s sphere of control.

On the other hand it stated that employer had control over the occurrence of the insect bite, it could have required the employee to spend his rest time in other accommodation, it could have instructed him to stay away from the truck during the period when he was not awake and thus there was a greater chance that he cannot avoid getting bit by insects around the cargo.

The damage occurred within the employer's control, so the employer could only be relieved of liability if it could prove that the damage was caused solely by the employee's own negligence.

In the light of its different legal position, the court of second instance did not examine the part of the appeal in which the employer pleaded the employee's negligence and breach of his duty to compensate, and the Supreme Court set aside the final judgment and ordered the court of second instance to examine this issue, while holding the employer liable for damages.

Summary

With the above decision, the Supreme Court confirmed its previous practice and interpreted the scope of employer’s control broadly. Based on the above, employers must assume all eventualities - even the bite of a particular insect - when organising work.

In the article we examined judicial decision published under No. BH 2024.4.89