Criminal Negligence And Liability In Workplace Accidents In Nepal
1. Legal Framework in Nepal
1.1 Key Statutes
Muluki Criminal Code (MCC), 2074
Section 204: Defines negligence resulting in injury or death.
Section 205: Punishment for death caused by negligence.
Section 206: Punishment for bodily injury caused by negligence.
Labor Act, 2074 (2017)
Employers are required to provide safe working conditions.
Employers can be held liable for workplace accidents due to negligence in safety measures.
1.2 Key Principles
Criminal negligence: Conduct falling below the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, causing harm to others.
In workplace accidents, liability depends on:
Existence of a duty of care (employer toward employees).
Breach of that duty through negligent acts or omissions.
Causation linking negligence to injury or death.
Foreseeability of harm.
2. Case Illustrations
Case 1: State v. Ramesh KC (2008, Kathmandu District)
Facts:
Ramesh KC, a factory manager, failed to maintain machinery. A worker was fatally injured when a machine malfunctioned.
Legal Issues:
Whether the employer/manager can be criminally liable for death caused by negligence under MCC Section 205.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court emphasized that Ramesh had a duty to maintain equipment.
The fatality was directly caused by his negligence, making him criminally liable.
Outcome:
Convicted for death due to negligence under Section 205.
Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and fined for damages.
Significance:
Employers/managers are criminally responsible if negligence results in fatal accidents.
Case 2: State v. Shrestha Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2010, Lalitpur District)
Facts:
During a building construction, scaffolding collapsed due to poor maintenance, killing two workers. The construction company was charged with criminal negligence.
Legal Issues:
Liability of corporate entities and supervisors for workplace accidents.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court found the company failed to provide safe working conditions, violating Section 204 and Labor Act.
Held that corporate liability is enforceable through responsible managers or directors.
Outcome:
Company fined heavily; managers personally sentenced to 2–3 years imprisonment.
Set a precedent for corporate accountability in Nepal.
Case 3: State v. Sita Magar (2013, Bhaktapur District)
Facts:
Sita Magar, head nurse in a hospital, failed to secure medical equipment. An oxygen cylinder exploded, injuring several staff members.
Legal Issues:
Whether professional negligence causing bodily injury is punishable under MCC Section 206.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court held that hospital staff and supervisors have a duty of care toward colleagues and patients.
Sita’s omission in securing equipment amounted to criminal negligence.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment with a fine for compensation to victims.
Significance:
Established liability for professional negligence in healthcare workplaces.
Case 4: State v. Deepak Thapa (2015, Pokhara District)
Facts:
Deepak Thapa, a mining supervisor, ignored safety protocols. A blasting accident occurred, killing a worker.
Legal Issues:
Whether deliberate disregard of safety rules constitutes criminal negligence.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court noted that foreseeability of harm is key.
Supervisors are criminally liable if they intentionally neglect safety standards, causing death or injury.
Outcome:
Convicted under MCC Sections 205 and 206.
Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Reinforces that gross negligence in high-risk industries carries heavy criminal liability.
Case 5: State v. Everest Cable Car Pvt. Ltd. (2018, Solukhumbu District)
Facts:
A cable car collapsed due to failure in routine maintenance. Two tourists and a worker were killed. The company and engineers were charged.
Legal Issues:
Liability of both corporate entity and technical staff for criminal negligence.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court found both corporate management and technical staff failed to exercise reasonable care.
Liability extended to all responsible parties under Sections 204–205 MCC.
Outcome:
Engineers sentenced to 3–4 years imprisonment, company fined heavily and ordered to pay compensation.
Established case law for industrial accidents involving tourists.
Case 6: State v. Ram Bhandari (2020, Kathmandu District)
Facts:
In a restaurant kitchen, Ram Bhandari failed to fix gas leak. A fire broke out, injuring two employees.
Legal Issues:
Whether negligence in routine maintenance causing injury amounts to criminal liability.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court ruled that employers and supervisors must proactively manage risks.
Liability arises when accident is reasonably foreseeable and preventable.
Outcome:
Convicted under Section 206 MCC.
Sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and ordered compensation to injured employees.
Significance:
Highlights employer responsibility in every workplace, not just high-risk industries.
3. Key Takeaways from Nepalese Jurisprudence
Duty of care is fundamental: All employers, supervisors, and responsible staff owe a duty to ensure safety.
Foreseeability matters: Liability arises when harm was reasonably foreseeable and preventable.
Corporate and individual liability: Both companies and managers can be held criminally responsible.
Range of punishment:
Fatality: Sections 205, 3–5 years imprisonment plus fine.
Bodily injury: Section 206, 1–2 years imprisonment plus fine.
Industries covered: Construction, mining, healthcare, tourism, and general workplaces.
Preventive lesson: Nepalese courts emphasize proactive safety measures to prevent accidents.
RELATED Blog
comments