The work accident occurred in 2022 at the Stellantis Vigo plant, which cost an employee, has resulted in a Extrajudicial economic Agreement and the withdrawal of denunciation by the particular accusation, which leads to procedure file and the impossibility of proceeding by the Prosecutor’s Office.
As he remembers Europa Pressthe events occurred in August and The injured party was an employee who performed maintenance work in the factory. On the other hand, the defendants were responsible for the Occupational Health and Stellantis Health Service of Stellantis Vigo at that time, as well as the person responsible for the technical support of the Plant Ferraje Unit.
For them, prosecution requested a Fine of 5,400 and 2,700 euros, respectivelyas well as the payment of a civil liability to the employee that almost reaches 340,000 euroswith the subsidiary civil liability of the company. The Public Ministry accused of an alleged minor crime of less serious recklessness in the result of serious constituent injuries of deformity.
For its part, the private accusation attributed to the defendants a Crime against workers’ rights and a crime of serious injury due to serious recklessness. However, this party withdrew the complaint after reaching a private economic agreement with the defendants, which leads to the archive, since the crime for which the prosecutor accuses requires complaint and, having retired, the criminal responsibility is extinguished. In this way, the trial indicated in Criminal Room 2 of Vigo was not even held.
-Regarding what happened, the prosecution’s brief collects that the worker was alone at a Stellantis ferrax One of the facilities that are suspended on the ship and that are used to transport parts.
At one point, an element reached it from behind, losing balance and putting the hand in the Ríl de la Aerovíabeing trapped. Later, another worker who was in another station heard the screams stopped the machine.
Prosecutor’s Office accused one of those responsible for being among their functions to evaluate the risks of jobs by not having contemplated all these risks, such as the need to have a “Dead Man” device to be able to immediately stop the machine. On the other hand, in the other person in charge he saw “negligence” since he had the obligation to ensure compliance with security measures.
However, he also pointed “lack of diligence” of the worker, that “disjointed” the slogans in the field of security contemplated in the company’s preventive planning, when it is located in the trajectory of circulation of the slings, instead of in the side halls.
