The activity performed at the employee’s own instigation

The Supreme Court in its judgment issued under file no. 21 Cdo 2034/2019 of 21 January 2020 decided on the employee's appeal, who had suffered an accident at work (injury to the right hand) when operating a wood cutting machine that the employee should not have worked on because he was sent home by his employer. Among other things, the Supreme Court dealt with the questions of whether the employee's activity on the machine on which he should not work (because he was sent home) is the fulfilment of his work tasks and whether the employer is responsible for the employee's injury.

According to the Supreme Court, it is the performance of work tasks if, from the point of view of local and time, it is an activity performed for the employer, unless the employee needs a special authorization or performed it against the employer's explicit prohibition.

The work on the wood-cutting machine did not require special authorization nor the employer's oral instruction for the employee to go home is an explicit prohibition of a particular activity and does not contain a precise definition of the prohibited activity. Even the fact that there was a sign on the machine "Out of service" cannot lead to the conclusion that the activity on this machine was not the performance of work tasks. This fact can only affect the possible release of the employer's liability for damage caused by an accident at work.