According to the first degree decision, the judge considered that security measures were taken by the company, highlighting that the testimonial test proved that the employee would have inserted the hand inside the machine and mocking the bimanual safety mechanism (use both hands to turn on the machine). The worker would have used the elbow in one of the buttons and finger of the hand on the other, thus suffering, fracture on his finger. The judge referred to, still, to the warning applied by the company on the same day of the accident, on the negligence of the employee when acting in that form, a document that was not contested at no time by the worker.
After the complainant has entered the appeal, the unambaradors of the Regional Labor Court of the 4th Region maintained the judgment by its own fundamentals. They included that there would be not even the possibility of the theory of objective liability, that is, independent of direction or guilt of the company for the purposes of indemnity, since the activities developed by the worker were not considered at risk.
Reference: TRT4 - Process 0000938-64.2013.5.04.0531 (RO), judgment referred to in the 189th edition of the TRT-RS electronic journal.
