Employee liable for theft of entrusted funds based on negligence, not degree of fault.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the employee's cassation appeal against a judgment ordering him to pay half the value of stolen money entrusted to him. The court held that while theft is an independent cause, the employee remains liable for the portion of the loss resulting from his failure to perform his duty of care. Consequently, the employee must compensate for the damage caused by his own negligence, even if the employer also contributed to the loss.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 117 § 2 KP; Art. 124 KP: An employee's liability for damage to entrusted property arising from theft does not change its nature or basis; the employee is liable to the extent that the damage resulted from their failure to perform the duty of care, while causes independent of them, such as the employer's lack of security measures, reduce liability proportionally.