Court finds Oddi liable for worker’s finger injury

Reykjavik District Court has ruled that compensation is payable under Oddi hf.’s liability insurance with VÍS for a workplace accident in which a worker lost part of a finger while cleaning a fish-skinning machine. The court found that the company had not adequately protected its employees’ safety, mbl.is reports.

The accident happened on March 21, 2018, in Oddi’s fish-processing hall in Patreksfjörður. The worker’s left hand was drawn into the machine. He lost the tip of his ring finger and suffered multiple fractures to his little finger. He was flown to the emergency department at Landspítali hospital in Reykjavík.

The worker said the machine stopped when he lifted a safety cover to remove stuck skin, then suddenly started again. VÍS argued that he had disabled the safety sensor by placing a metal object on it, allowing the machine to run with the cover open. The court found that this had not been proved and ruled that the worker should not be held partly responsible.

A report prepared by Oddi nearly seven months after the accident said the worker had disabled the sensor. He signed the report, which was written in Icelandic, but he is Polish and did not understand the language. There was no evidence that its contents had been translated or explained to him. He denied recognising the account and said he had signed because he trusted his employer. The court found the report had limited evidential value.

Security camera footage did not show whether the worker had interfered with the sensor, and about 30 seconds covering the accident were missing. VÍS said the camera recorded only when it detected movement in the room. Two Oddi employees said they had previously raised concerns about the worker placing metal objects on the sensor, but neither had seen such an object or other signs of interference after the accident. The court found their testimony did not establish that he had disabled the safety equipment on this occasion.

After the accident, the Administration of Occupational Safety and Health raised concerns about the machine’s safety equipment. The guard was misaligned and opened too far, allowing a hand to reach the danger zone. The court also found that the safety equipment could easily be disabled, contrary to rules on the use of machinery. Company employees knew about the problem but did not fix it until after the accident, even though the necessary measure was simple and inexpensive.

The court did not decide the amount of compensation. It ordered VÍS to pay 1.9 million krónur in legal costs to the Treasury. The worker received legal aid.