Is the training provided for in articles L. 4141-1 et L. 4141-2 du Code du travail. a specific duty of care or safety imposed by law or regulation, as defined in article 220-22 du Code pénal ?
This question was referred to the Court of Cassation in a judgment, upheld by an appeal ruling, in which a company and a shipowner were convicted following an accident at work suffered by a person on a fishing vessel.
Thus,
1. The Criminal Court held that the company and the shipowner had failed to comply with their particular duty of care or safety imposed by law or regulation by not providing the victim with practical and appropriate health and safety information and training, in accordance with articles L. 4141-1 and L. 4141-2 of the Labour Code.
On appeal, the judges upheld the judgement, considering, firstly, that the victim had not received any practical and appropriate training in the dangerous maneuver of turning a trawl net and, secondly, that this lack of training was the cause of the accident, since his right arm had been caught in the winch that the mechanic had set in motion.
In this sense, the Court of Appeal interpreted the obligation to provide training and information as a safety obligation provided for by the law and regulations.
2. In the view of the Criminal Division, the judges had given the provisions of articles L. 4141-1 and L. 4141-2 of the Labour Code an extensive and therefore erroneous interpretation, even though it had already specified that the specific obligations of caution or safety imposed by law or regulation under article 220-22 of the Criminal Code should be understood as « objective » obligations, « immediately perceptible and clearly applicable without the subject being able to make a personal assessment » (Cass. crim., 13 November 2019, no. 18-82.718).
In this sense, therefore, Articles L. 4141-1 and L. 4141-2 of the Labour Code only contain general obligations of care and safety, and not specific obligations.
Consequently, as the obligations set out in articles L. 4141-1 and L. 4141-2 of the Labour Code do not include specific obligations of prudence or safety imposed by law or regulation within the meaning of the provisions of article 220-22 of the Criminal Code, the failure to train raised by the defendants in this case could not constitute a manifestly deliberate breach of a specific obligation of prudence or safety imposed by law or regulation.
The appeal judgment was therefore subject to being quashed.