Rozsudek Nejvyššího soudu České republiky (dále jen „NS“) ze dne 20. května 2026, sp. zn. 21 Cdo 357/2025, se zabýval případem zaměstnance, který po pracovním úrazu dlouhodobě pozbyl zdravotní způsobilost k výkonu dosavadní práce. Pracovní poměr byl ukončen dohodou z důvodu podle § 52 písm. d) zákoníku práce. Zaměstnavatel odmítl vyplatit dvanáctinásobné odstupné (podle aktuálně účinné úpravy jde o jednorázovou náhradu dle § 271ca zákoníku práce) s odůvodněním, že pracovní úraz byl způsoben výlučně porušením pravidel BOZP ze strany zaměstnance.
The Supreme Court therefore addressed the conditions under which an employer may be exonerated from the obligation to compensate damage or non-material harm caused by an occupational accident.
The Supreme Court emphasised that, for full exoneration of the employer, it is not sufficient to prove only that the employee breached safety regulations. The employer must also prove that the employee was duly familiarised with the relevant rules and that compliance with those rules was consistently required and monitored. If the employer fails to prove this, full exoneration from liability cannot be established.
When relying on grounds for exoneration under Section 270 of the Labour Code, the employer must therefore be able to document not only the existence of occupational health and safety rules and the employee’s familiarisation with them, but also their actual enforcement in practice and the continuous monitoring of compliance with those rules.
HR LU 06/26 download here.
The information contained in this bulletin is presented to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of going to press. However, specific information related to the topics covered in this bulletin should be consulted before any decision is made. The information contained in this bulle-tin should not be construed as an exhaustive description of the relevant issues and any possible consequences, and should not be fully relied on in any decision-making processes or treated as a substitute for specific legal ad-vice, which would be relevant to particular circumstances. Neither Weinhold Legal, s.r.o. advokátní kancelář nor any individual lawyer listed as an author of the information accepts any responsibility for any detriment which may arise from reliance on information published here. Fur-thermore, it should be noted that there may be various legal opinions on some of the issues raised in this bulletin due to the ambiguity of the relevant provisions and an interpre-tation other than the one we give us may prevail in the future.
Automatic text and data mining, as well as reproduction or extraction of their content for the purposes of automated analysis from this information material, is prohibited pursuant to Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 and Section 39c of Act No. 121/2000 Coll., the Copyright Act, without the prior express written consent of Weinhold Legal, s.r.o., law firm, unless, in any such use, the authorship of Weinhold Legal, s.r.o., law firm is expressly acknowledged together with a reference to the location of such text and data.
© 2025 Weinhold Legal
All rights reserved.
