The construction firm that employed the deceased was being prosecuted in the trial. The victim's family asked for €375,000 in damages and interest, whereas the prosecutor also called for the business to be fined. The trial concerned a work accident in Hautcharage in April 2015. The man fell seven to eight metres off a roof and was grievously injured. Seven months later, he succumbed to his injuries aged 57.
On the day of the accident, two of the firm's employees were charged with repairing sheeting on a roof. Due to the high amounts of wind, the employees called in a reinforcement, which was the victim, according to the Inspectorate of Labour and Mines (ITM). The man was briefed on safety measures, but then approached an unsecured hole in the roof and fell. The ITM inspector reported that the logical approach would be to first get sheets and then open a hole in the roof, rather than the reverse, which is what occurred on the day.
The two employees scheduled to work that day claimed it was possible the man had not paid attention, although he had been told to not go to the area where the sheeting had been removed. They both claimed all the events went by quickly. Further, the victim had not often worked on roofs.
The police investigator confirmed that the man had been told to keep away from the hole, but also that the workers had not been appropriately protected and the victim had not been the appropriate worker for the job in question. The coroner reported the man's injuries, namely significant wounds to the head. According to the coroner, there was a clear correlation between the fall and the man's later death.
The lawyer representing multiple members of the victim's family asked for €375,000 in damages and interest. In response, the firm's lawyer pleaded that the firm had not committed a mistake, although the prosecutor's opinion diverged in that regard. The prosecutor argued that the accident would not have happened if the hole had been secured. Above all, the prosecutor believed simply telling the victim to avoid that area was an insufficient safety measure. Ultimately, the prosecutor argued this could not be considered adequate training and the man's death was a direct result of the accident, which in itself revealed a 'lack of caution and oversight' on the part of the firm.
The verdict is expected on 11 December.
