ARTICLE
30 December 2025

Construction And Workplace Accidents – Caselaw Update

MK
Michael Kyprianou Law Firm

Contributor

The firm, based in Cyprus, has an international presence. Its services include Dispute Resolution, Property, Shipping, Immigration, Commercial and Corporate Law. It is highly ranked by leading legal directories, including Legal500 and Chambers and regularly receives accolades from the Cyprus Government and international bodies, in recognition of its excellent service and commitment to the values of integrity, efficiency and professionalism.
In two recently published Judgments (Α. ΕΡΓΟΛΗΠΤΙΚΗ ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΑ ΓΙΑΝΝΑΚΗΣ ΓΙΑΝΝΗ ΣΥΜΕΟΥ & ΥΙΟΙ ΛΤΔ v. ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗ ΣΑΒΒΑ, Civ App. 266/2017, 2/12/2025 and ΑΛΕΞΗ ΑΛΕΞΑ\
Cyprus Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Michael Kyprianou Law Firm are most popular:
  • within Insurance and Transport topic(s)

In two recently published Judgments (Α. ΕΡΓΟΛΗΠΤΙΚΗ ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΑ ΓΙΑΝΝΑΚΗΣ ΓΙΑΝΝΗ ΣΥΜΕΟΥ & ΥΙΟΙ ΛΤΔ v. ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗ ΣΑΒΒΑ, Civ App. 266/2017, 2/12/2025 and ΑΛΕΞΗ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ ν. ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ (ΚΑΛΑΜΟΥΔΙΑΣ) ΛΤΔ Civ App.301/2015,1/12/2025), the Supreme Court of Cyprus (SCC) has reminded us, and especially the Employer/Contractor, the all-important consideration of basic safety measures in construction work.

Basic safety measures matter, but their presence matters even more in the field of construction work. This is especially true where an employee will most of the time be a subcontractor offering his services to another contractor for the main contractor. Outsiders, in the form of specialised workers, like a subcontractor, are often left to their own devices, and not being included, briefed or cautioned on a safe system of work.

From the outset, the SCC, in both cases, found the employee contributed in his own accident and allocated contributory negligence of 25%, after the Appellant/ Employer in Civil Appeal 301/15 succeeded with the Appeal ground on miscalculation from the District Court. Following the employer's unsafe instructions, without exercising judgment or using a wet staircase, failing to dry/clean it, despite knowing the risk was not on par with what is expected of a "reasonable and prudent employee".

Although no safe system was found to be in place in either case, the employee's actions were still found to be not those of a "reasonable and prudent worker" citing the well known case law (Vrondis (2017), Antoniou (2017), and Sfyri (2005) to reiterate the employee's duty of self-protection. Nevertheless, in both Judgements, the Court found that the employee's experience increases the degree of self-protection expected, but does not negate the employer's duty to create and maintain a safe system of work. However, let us not forget that this duty is multifaceted and includes the obligation to provide a safe system of work, competent personnel, safe equipment, adequate supervision, and safe premises for work.

The SCC consistently affirms that employees must take reasonable precautions for their own safety, based on their experience and the nature of their work and that an employer must provide a safe system regardless of employee behaviour. In practice, where there is awareness of the danger but the employer's failure remains the predominant cause, the employee will be found contributory negligent on a similar range of 20% – 30%. Liability will often follow the party who controls the workplace and ought to create a safety system.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More