TIUMZEGI BERAKI v. ANNILO RIFONE
tl1e to according Labour Law published in 1958 (E.C.) 231.Etl1. $ of nt ou tlie am bit 3). Tl�e amount of damages fixe� by the Insurance Company was . . See Exhi o Nat1 stry lV n 1n l Com 11n1 y Develop111ent and Social Affairs tl1e � ! by ? � ! � � ed rov _ �p or1g1nal 1nd1cate ly d 111s w1ll1ngness to accept the said am011nt Pla1nt1ff 2). it Exllib (§ e �o�pany prepared � rec�ipt, be declared that he I1ad Ins11ran the r � afte _ b;t� . d 1nst1tuted tl1e prese11t s_111t. This �as pr�ba?lY so because he a1 mind his � ged . chan by people \Vho are interested rn 1nst1tut1ng groundless lit advised neously erro . as tl1e an1011nt claimed by i:>Iaintiff. The Ministry pay to f11ses r o11de11t Resp � n. ;atio Deve]op1ne11t fixed tl1e amount of damages to Eth. $ 231. Comn1u111ty al ation of N basing itself 011 �rts. 4� and_ 45 of the 1958 Labour Law. Moreover, tl1is Labour La,v is still applicable 111 Eritrea. Order No. 27 of November 15, 1962, sL1pports this contentio11. Plaintiff \Vas en1ployed by respo11dent 011 July 7, 1969 (See Exl1ibit No. 1) a11d "vas disn1.issed on December 17, 1969. I--Ie was being paid Etl1. $ 0.58 er day (_Exl1ibit �o. 10) and i �e total amount of_ salary h� received d11ring tl:e p _ entire period of 111s en1ployment 1s Etl1. $ 7 8 .04. Since pla111t1ff's monthly salary 1s $14.52, tl1e amo1111t he would get in one year wo11ld be$ 174 .24. According to tl1e Labour Lavv previo11sly cited, tl1is should be 11111ltiplied by six years and pro-rated against the perce11tage of disability sti:fl'ered by plaintiff. Such disability \Vas certified to amount to 25�/� and, as a r cs11lt, tl1e an1ou11t plai11tiff sl1ould get wo11Id be $231 . 36. * Botl1 plaintiff's a11d respondent's arguments l1ave been supported by docu1nentary evidence wl1ich is attached to the present record. That tl1e plaintiff \Vas a11 e1nployee of tl1e respondent, that l1e Sllffered ioj Ltry to l1is rigl1t l1and tl1umb \\1l1ile i11 the discharge of his d11ties and tl1at a medical board ascertai11ed that tl1e extent of l1is disability an1011nts to 25% is nowl1ere co11tested. The respondent does 11ot claim exemption from liability; it is tl1e extent of the con1pensatio11 that is being argt1ed upon. According to respo11dent's cou11sel, plaintiff s11ffered the inj11ry \Vhiie in the employment of respondent and h.ence the latter's liability should be determined by labour law and 11ot l1nder the provisions of extra-contractual liability. Art. 2088 of the Civil Code provides that the rl1les of extra-contractual liability arising out of abnormal risks, a11imals, b11ildi11gs or objects may not be invoked by a person wl10, 11nder a contract conclL1ded by the person legally responsible, is connected with the dangerous industrial activity, ani111al, b11ild ing or object wl1ich has caused tl1e damage. B11t even thougl1 the liability is to be vie\.ved under co11tract law, tl1e extent of compensatio11 should be assessed 011 the basis of extra-contract11al liability. Arts. 1790 to 1799 of the Civil Code sho11ld be taken i11to consideration. Even though there "vas a contract11al relationship between employer and employee, the forn1er is liable for i11j11ries sustained by tl1e latter in the course of his e1nployment (/-\rts. 2549 and 2550 of tl1e Civil Code). Since the responde11t is tl1e employer, it is clear that he is liable. The amount of compensation due sl1011ld be fixed by the Court and not by the Ministry of !'Tational Com1nunity Developme11t and Social Affairs a11d the case sho11ld be decided In accordance witl1 tl1e provisions of the Civil Code. Respondent's argument that the case should be decided by tl1e sta·ndards laid dow11 in tl1e 1958 Procla1nation is erroneous. The Proclamation v✓ ould only apply to i11sta11ces \vl1icl1 are not covered by t�e provisio11s of· the Civil Code. When tl1is Code specifically deals with a certa in situation, it is clear that its provisions sl1011ld be applied. *Tllis is an erroneou s calculation·' the correct a1nout1t sl1ould be $ 261 • 36.
- 65-