[ad_1]
After filing a civil lawsuit with the gym, the family managed to injure the boy. However, the prosecution saw neither a crime nor criminal negligence.
Family lawyer Povilas Kazakevičius describes the lower court’s decision as a small victory, because the costs of the family court have been deducted from the small part of the award. However, the fact that the boy was injured on school grounds has been confirmed.
“We have requested compensation for moral damage of 20 thousand euros – 15 thousand. Euros for a child and 5 thousand. But the court of first instance granted 3 thousand euros. Euros only for a child. In my opinion, the damage awarded in this The case does not correspond at all to the experiences of both the mother and the child, although the court considered that the circumstances reported by the child were more likely than those of the educators. In one case, it argued that he had accompanied the girl to the bus school, but later admitted, nevertheless, that he had returned halfway up the stairs to the classroom. In addition, the expenses of the gym lawyer were ordered to be deducted from the amount awarded: 500 euros “, teaches P. Kazakevičius.
Mauras Urbonavičius, a lawyer representing the gym, says that the teacher was confused when giving testimony, because he did not immediately understand how the boy remained in the classroom where he was locked up. The boy said that the teacher, who accompanied all the children to the bus, ordered them to go back to class together and locked him there. The woman explained that she did not. Initially he said that he took the children to the bus, told them to wait and rushed back home, then said that he did not accompany the children and returned to check the classroom and the playroom, but that he had not seen the hidden boy. there.
“The teacher did not wait for the end of the pre-trial investigation, she voluntarily left her job shortly after the fact. The director only found out about the fact that the boy jumped out of the window and was injured when the boy was in the hospital, ”says M. Urbonavičius.
The confusing situation after the incident also interested the prosecution. It is true that the investigation into the failure of a teacher’s duties is over. The reason given is that it was terminated in the absence of the offense: although the educator did not comply with the obligation to accompany the students to the bus, there were reasonable doubts as to whether the teacher had received any instruction and found that it had been committed. the offense but not the offense. The prosecution declares that there is no indisputable evidence that the minor was intentionally locked in the classroom. You can still appeal against such a decision of the prosecution.
The injuries sustained by the child were considered insignificant: broken pelvic bones, concussions of internal organs and concussions. Physical injuries are not those with long-term consequences in life. According to the boy’s lawyer and his mother, then the experience of a seven-year-old has far more serious consequences than physical trauma.
“Not to mention that he cannot access the window, he is afraid of being left alone in the room. Also, it all happened at the end of the school year, the boy did not want to go back to the same school, he complained to his mother that he was being there abused. Yes, the child was not very calm, he himself said that the educator deliberately locked him in the office because he was ill. The extent to which the child could adequately assess the circumstances was examined, and it was found that the very fact of falling did not it had actually been made up, although he was confused from what height it had fallen.
According to the civil case, the child “could not leave the closed room of the gym and did not assess the risk of falling from a height due to his young age, he slipped through a classroom window, slipped and fell from the third floor classroom and was seriously injured. ” According to the medical data provided, the child was treated in the Resuscitation and Intensive Care Unit for two days and then transferred to the Surgery Unit in a satisfactory condition. The boy, who had spent nine days in the hospital, was released from the home and doctors told the boy to continue to recover on the mandatory rest for several more weeks.
The boy did not go to the hospital immediately because his mother did not know what had happened to the boy. He was brought home by the father of a classmate, who did not understand all the circumstances from the explanations of the crying boy. The research material collected shows that the boy said that he had fallen out the window from the beginning.
According to the family’s lawyer, there is a well and a roof right next to the place where the boy fell, so it was not so long before the tragedy.
“There is an instruction in the gym that teachers must accompany children to the school bus after school. The teacher did not do that, although at first she said that she was actually accompanying. Also, when the prosecution opened the investigation, a witness who confirmed that he had seen the child fall. The teacher said that perhaps the child was hiding in the classroom, although he usually sat on the first bench by the door to be able to flee faster “, D. Kurpavičius shares his doubts about the circumstances of the accident.
Furthermore, during a police inspection of the site, it was recorded that “a fragment of a slippery shoe trail with a part of the sole pressed was found on the windowsill on the side of the field where the cleaner found the window open.” The sole of the shoe matched the child’s shoes.
The boy’s mother told the court that the gym was unwilling to explain the problem right away, denied it, and faced seemingly indifferent and even unpleasant comments about her and the boy herself.
The gym director says the teacher was not fined, she left school voluntarily; shortly after what happened, guards appeared at the windows, preventing them from opening.
“I can’t see everyone. As it turned out later, the teacher didn’t always accompany the children to the bus. After the event, I reminded all the teachers of the rules, but I didn’t find out about the event right away. The teacher left work. voluntarily, ”said the gym director.
The institution’s lawyer, who disagreed with the size of the civil action, stated that there were no intentional injuries to the child. The family lawyer pointed out to the Court of First Instance that the professor’s own explanations were clearly contradictory. The totality of the evidence in the case suggests that it is more likely that the child was locked in the classroom by teachers who applied such an educational measure. Therefore, the court finds this circumstance established.
Although guilt is not directly proven in a civil action, the court noted that the Lithuanian Supreme Court, in formulating the jurisprudence on employer liability, has clarified that not only general conditions of civil liability are necessary for the civil liability of the employer. employer: illegal actions, fault, damage, causal connection, but also additional conditions: there must be a labor or civil contract between the employer and the employee, on the basis of which the data subject acts according to his instructions and under his control, and the damage must be caused in the course of employment.
“In the present case, the teacher was directly responsible for the care and safety of the child. By locking a small child in the classroom, the teacher committed an intentional act, violating the gym regulation approved by order of the gym director on April 10 10/2018. <...>, giving rise to negligence on the part of the minor, that is, injuries ‘, says the judgment of the Court of First Instance, which establishes that'[e]The entrepreneur will also be responsible for the lack of application or request Organizational measures have allowed the damage to occur. <...> According to consistent jurisprudence, the fault of the person who employs the employees is equated with the fault of the employee and the employer is liable for the harm caused by the employee during work. Therefore, the event in which the minor was injured is also the fault of the employer: the gym.
The amount of damages announced by Judge Osvaldas Briedis did not satisfy the family of the injured child, as a child growing up in a large and orderly family still feels the consequences of trauma. Representatives of the gym did not contest the decision, saying that the amount, based on the example of similar cases, is adequate and not the smallest. However, the child protection lawyer does not hide the fact that after the incident, the child protection specialists offered the mother to contact lawyers, and the school did not offer any help or peaceful negotiations.
After examining the appeal, the Klaipėda Regional Court decided to increase the share of the damages. He awarded the boy 5,000 euros and his mother 1,000 euros in non-pecuniary damages.
It is strictly forbidden to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in the media or elsewhere, or to distribute our material in any way without consent, and if consent has been obtained, it is necessary to cite DELFI as the source.
[ad_2]
