This is the crux of the latest ultimate Court ruling.
The case was a consequence of an incidental at the boarding school conducted by the Lower Silesian School and Education Centre. 1 of the wards approached another boy and struck him with a fist in the face, damaging his sight organ. At that time there were 2 educators there, but they could not prevent it due to the fact that they were helping another children. An ambulance was called, the victim was subjected to a series of treatments in the hospital, yet the left eyeball was removed, but according to the medical opinion, this event did not affect his condition, as the boy had shown blindness of that eye before the injury.
Minor cases of confusion
As to the motives of the perpetrator, it was only after the attack that he explained to his teachers and colleagues that the victim “belonged”. The consequence was that the assault was a kind of revenge for the plaintiff's earlier behaviour towards another students, which was reflected in the regular reports of educators at boarding school, for which the reason was repeatedly reproved (for vulgar speaking and behavior, in peculiar towards fellow students).
The territory court ruled the injured individual PLN 45 1000 and the pension PLN 600 per period from this institution and insurance company on the basis of the insurance policy against civilian liability of teachers for damages caused in connection with the pursuit of the profession of teacher/teacher. However, the territory Court in Wrocław changed the conviction and the actions of the injured organization were dismissed.
Without compensation
SO indicated that the said facility does not specialize in the care and teaching of children with educational problems, and its public nature makes it acceptable to children from different backgrounds. It is so hard to require peculiar supervision by DOS guardians of subjects , characteristic of establishments of the kind of correction facility .
The supervision of these caregivers was expected to be of the nature of care and assistance, not of control and supervision – it was carried out on a akin basis to school conditions, where educators respond only erstwhile there is simply a disturbance of peace or direct fighting or quarreling.
SO concluded that the plaintiff was harmed by another fishy alternatively than by a DOS employee. The second cannot so be attributed to liability under Article 430 KC, i.e. for harm to the subordinate.
The ultimate Court composed of the first president of Małgorzata Manowska, the president of Joanna Lemańska and Aleksander Stępkowski, the Judge-Rapporteur, after examining the cassation complaint of the injured organization confirmed this position SO with a wider argument.
According to SN, the responsibility behind the harm could have been due not only to direct origin but besides to negligence in supervision. The plaintiff directed his claims pursuant to Article 430 KC to DOS as an employer whose managers were on duty. However, where the plaintiff seeks to delegate work to a superior under Article 430 KC, this may only be possible if the worker who is subject to the management of the unit is attributable to the supervision under Article 427 KC.
While Article 427 KC introduces the presumption of guilt in the supervision of the obliged individual and the presumption of a causal link between the harm suffered by the individual subject to care and the defective performance of supervision, the injured individual inactive has to show the harm and its amount and the causal link between the action of the perpetrator and the damage. And that's not what he showed.
File number: II CSKP 500/22
Jolanta Budzowska
legal counsel, specialising in wellness harm cases
The analysis of the existence in a circumstantial situation of liability under Article 427 KC will always be based on a precise determination of the facts. Overcoming the presumption of guilt in supervision is based on subjecting the individual required to test an nonsubjective standard of reasonable person. It is simply a rational assessment of whether the guardian has done everything that should have been done in a given situation, and yet the harm has been done, or whether, indeed, he has not acted in the right way, but the harm would have been done even if he had approached his duties carefully. Moreover, the work of the supervisor may only be counted if it can be demonstrated that the peculiar negligence in the performance of the supervision work remains due to causality.
