In Alicante, a court ruling scrutinized accusations against the mayor of Lliber and examined responsibility tied to a workplace accident involving a metal structure funded by the City Council. The central question was whether the council member bore any liability during the construction work that led to a worker’s injury. The incident occurred on February 6, 2017, when a worker fell four meters from scaffolding used for the project, sustaining multiple injuries with lasting health consequences. A Benidorm Criminal Court later found the mayor, while still in office, guilty of violations of workers’ rights due to insufficient safety measures. The court upheld the contractor’s sentence but reversed the mayor’s conviction, ruling that ensuring worker safety was not within the mayor’s direct duties. The decision remains subject to appeal before the Supreme Court, and the court ordered the City Council’s insurer to cover €210,794, pending final determination.
According to the proceedings, the mayor gave an oral authorization for the installation of a metallic shade over the Sant Cosme y Damià public school sports field. The operator was welding structural reinforcements on a pier when the partner moved, causing the scaffold to become unstable and the fall to occur. The injured worker faced nearly a year of recovery due to his injuries, a timeline that underscored the human cost of the incident.
The court found that the accident stemmed from a failure to observe safety measures, noting that auxiliary equipment and installed protective devices were not properly maintained. It highlighted the absence of guard rails, a lack of harnesses for the worker, and insufficient training in occupational risk prevention. The decision pointed to a deficiency in the structural elements required to keep scaffolding stable and secure throughout the operation, emphasizing how gaps in safety planning can translate into real danger on site.
This criminal case held the mayor of Lliber responsible for the accident, noting that verbal assurances to the job prevented municipal technicians from verifying preventive measures. Conversely, the defense argued that the work was carried out by a small business in line with applicable legislation, with expenses to be approved and included in the invoice. The Court clarified that City Council functions do not include performing commercial tasks that should be handled by third party companies. In its reasoning, the chapter on the case indicated that the councilman did not conceal critical information from technicians, having prepared a report to obtain a subsidy from the technical architect of Diputación. The Court concluded there was no legal basis for the mayor to appeal and found no obligation for implementing, monitoring, or controlling preventive measures by the council; the safety of workers in assignments undertaken by contracted companies should be guaranteed. Consequently, the conviction of the first mayor was reversed, and acquittal was granted for him.
The decision affirms direct legal responsibility of the City Council, meaning indemnity should be paid by the City Council’s insurer under the applicable policy. It also notes that default interest is exempt by rule because the insurer was not notified until two years after the event. In contrast, the court upheld the conviction of the businessman who managed the work, recognizing that he accepted responsibility for his negligent act by failing to provide the necessary preventive tools, which led to prosecution results. The injured worker had been unemployed for six years before being hired by the defendant, his trade a workshop welder with no prior experience as a structural specialist. The only protective equipment provided consisted of gloves suitable for welding the reinforcements on a ship, later to be assembled on site in Lliber.
During the proceedings, the employer argued that the worker had been hired because of specialized training in high altitude jobs, a point the court did not accept. The overall outcome stresses the shared accountability between the contractor and municipal authorities, highlighting the need for robust safety protocols and a clear delineation of responsibility among parties involved in public workforce projects. This case demonstrates how courts examine the interplay between municipal oversight and contractor conduct when workplace safety standards are at issue, illustrating the ongoing legal framework that governs public works and occupational safety within municipal environments.