earticle

영어

The employee attended a get-together that the department of company planed to have and went to karaoke room to have some fun with the members of team. he went out to the karaoke room and opened the window to go to the toilet. but the window that he opened is not that of toilet. So he dropped from 4 floor and got wound. The reason why he considered the window as the door of toilet was drinking too much and was lacking in judgement. he applied for the benefit of workers’ compensation law, but the authority denied the application. so he filed an objection in court. The supreme court decided that he couldn’t receive the benefit, because the accident occurred beyond the normal category of risk. the ground of judgement was that he drank too much by himself although the co-workers asked him to stop drinking. I think that the decision of supreme court has a few problems, First, the decision matches the system of workers’ compensation law that don’t demand non employee’s negligence except the intention of employee. Second, the judgement of adequate causation in workers’ compensation law is that of adequate causation between employee’s act and the accident, the accident and injure(illness or death). the judgement of adequate causation in workers’ compensation law don’t demand the judgement that is whether the employee act is included within the occupational act. Hence, I think that wound employee has the qualification to receive benefit of workers’ compensation law.