Employer fined €8,000 for worker's death in goods lift

An employer has been fined €8,000 for the involuntary homicide of a worker who was killed while operating a goods lift in 2005.

Clamus Holding's Managing Director Claudio Muscat had been charged with negligently causing the death of Carmel Sammut at the company's Qormi storage facility.

Sammut had died some hours after being crushed when the chain supporting a goods lift snapped while he had been attempting to unjam the hoist, from inside the lift shaft.

A court-appointed engineer had established that the fatal incident occurred because the deceased had been struggling to free a stuck piece of the hoist's frame, whilst simultaneously pressing the “up” button on lift controller.

This caused the load on the load-bearing chain to increase to the point of failure, the engineer concluded. Being a goods lift, the device did not have the emergency brakes that are standard on passenger lifts.

Although the lift in question had some safety features installed, it was still not in conformity with EU regulations, the engineer said, concluding that there had been nothing in place to stop people from going inside the lift shaft.

A number of other charges relating to health and safety breaches were also made against Muscat and these had been proven to the satisfaction of the court.

In 2012, a civil court had ordered the company to pay the victim's widow and child €145,615 in compensation.

Muscat faced up to four years in prison or a maximum fine of €11,646 for involuntary homicide.

The defence had contended that the incident had been caused by the victim's negligence and would still have taken place, even had the accused fulfilled all of his legal obligations.

Magistrate Marse-Anne Farrugia, however disagreed, ruling that even if Sammut had contributed to his own death by inadvisedly trying to fix the lift himself instead of calling a technician, this did not absolve the accused of his responsibility for his failure to abide by regulations.

Quoting the 1954 judgement by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Police vs Paul Vassallo, the court noted that “in our penal system, contributory negligence by a third party does not exonerate the accused from criminal responsibility.

“While it is possible that Sammut had contributed to his own death, it however was the accused who created the environment required for the event by making a workplace – particularly the goods lift – that lacked the necessary safety features at law and by failing to implement the measures prescribed by law to prevent injuries or fatalities caused by lifts.”

The court noted that the accused had 17 prior convictions, which were related to selling at open-air markets without police permission, selling items without a price tag, selling gold and silver that had no official markings and failing to submit his VAT return on time.

It also took into consideration comments made by a Health and Safety Authority official, who had described the accused as “genuine” and “not a cowboy.”

The accused had immediately admitted to his failings and shortcomings, observed the court ruling that, therefore, a prison sentence was not ideal in the circumstances at hand.

Although the accused's failure to observe the regulations was the cause of death, the element of contributory negligence ought to be reflected in the punishment, said the court.

“Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, neither a prison sentence nor a suspended sentence would be ideal in this case. Instead, the punishment should be pecuniary and at the maximum.”

Muscat was found guilty of involuntary homicide and fined €8,000, which amount was due immediately. A failure to pay would see the fine converted into a prison sentence of one day of incarceration for every €35 due.