The Tallinn Circuit Court awarded a total of 100,000 euros to the family of a worker who died in a fatal workplace accident in Sweden. The family was represented by NAMM attorney Kristiina Urb-Semjonov, who secured compensation from both the employer and the insurer over a court dispute that lasted nearly seven years.
In November 2016, a project manager for an Estonian power line construction company was working on a high-voltage line upgrade site in Sweden. The crew began work believing the line was de-energised. In fact, the line was switched on that same day for a phase check. When the project manager rose in an aerial work platform with a colleague to measure the distance between the pylons, he received an electric shock from the line and died the same day. The other worker also died.
Word that the line had been energised never reached the crew. Communication between the Swedish control centre and the Estonian crew was relayed by an electrical safety coordinator who was being used for the first time and was not present on site. The Swedish Work Environment Authority found that such an intermediary should never have been used in electrical safety communication.
Because the parties could not reach an out-of-court settlement, the family had to go to court to protect their rights. In this case, the Supreme Court of Estonia clarified employer liability for workplace safety in 2025 and referred the matter back to the circuit court for a new hearing. The present decision brings that dispute to an end: the court established the employer’s liability for breaching workplace safety requirements and set the amounts of compensation.
Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, an employer must assess work-related risks and ensure safe working conditions in every situation. The circuit court found that the employer had failed to assess the risks arising from foreign-language and relayed communication and had not ensured safe working conditions for the worker.
The court ordered Leonhard Weiss OÜ to pay the family 45,000 euros in non-pecuniary damages (for the victim’s own suffering) and 25,000 euros (for the suffering of a close family member). A further insurance indemnity of 30,000 euros was awarded against the insurer ERGO Insurance SE.
Notably, the insurer had refused to pay the insurance indemnity out of court, but the circuit court found that the insurer must pay it in full. The court pointed out that an insurer in fact has limited grounds to avoid paying an insurance indemnity. To withhold the indemnity even in part, the insurer must prove that the insured risk materialised because of a breach of the policyholder’s obligations, and also to what extent the person’s own conduct affected the occurrence of the insured event. In this case the insurer did not do so.
According to Kristiina, the ruling shows that an employer cannot shift the assessment of serious workplace safety risks onto the worker, and that an insurer cannot escape paying compensation simply by pointing to the victim’s mistake. Growing compensation amounts could push employers to think more about workplace safety and to put preventive measures in place. Kristiina sincerely thanks the family for their trust and perseverance throughout this long and difficult proceeding.
The ruling is available here.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Is the employer liable even if the worker also broke safety rules? Yes. The employer’s liability does not disappear simply because the worker also made a mistake. If the employer failed to assess the risks or ensure safety, it can be liable even where the worker contributed to the accident. The court weighs each side’s share and may reduce compensation accordingly.
Can an insurer refuse to pay if the victim was at fault? Only to a limited extent. The insurer must prove that the insured event arose because of a breach of the insured party’s obligations, and also to what extent that breach increased the likelihood of the accident. If the insurer cannot prove this, the indemnity must be paid in full.
How much compensation is paid for a fatal workplace accident? There is no fixed amount; the court bases its decision on the circumstances of each case and on prior case law. In this case the court awarded a total of 100,000 euros, including for the victim’s own suffering and for a close family member’s suffering. In recent years compensation amounts have tended to rise.
Who can claim compensation when a family member dies in a workplace accident? Compensation can be claimed by the deceased’s heirs and close family members. The victim’s own claim for damages passes to the heirs, while a close family member can separately claim compensation, for example where the death caused them lasting health damage. In addition, compensation under an insurance contract may apply.
In the same case, the Supreme Court had earlier issued guidance on employer liability. Read more: The Supreme Court clarified employer liability in the event of a work accident. For more on employee rights and compensation after a work accident, see the article Work accidents, employee rights and compensation for damage.