Photo used for illustrative purpose.

The Al Ain Court of Appeal upheld a verdict by the Al Ain Court of First Instance obligating the owner of a nursery and two employees working for it to pay the father of a child Dhs30,000 in compensation for the damage incurred, after one of the two employees closed a door on the child’s finger.

The details of the case date back to an earlier time when the father of the child filed a lawsuit in which he sued the owner of a nursery and two employees for the incident, explaining that his two-year-old child was under the supervision of the two employees in the nursery owned by the third appellee, and that the first appellee had accidentally injured his child as a result of closing the door on his finger, causing the amputation of the tip of the right finger, severe bleeding, loss of half of the nail, in addition to 3 centimetres of skin, and a transverse cut.

The appellant of the child indicated that the first and second appellees were convicted according to a criminal verdict, and demanded that they and the owner of the nursery be obligated to pay him Dhs51,000 in compensation for the damage incurred to his child, in addition to the fees and expenses of the lawsuit and in the lawyer’s fees.

The Court of First Instance ordered the three appellees to pay Dhs30,000 jointly in compensation for all damages.

The owner of the nursery appealed the ruling, stressing that the penal ruling condemned the two employees for negligence and that he did not contribute to any wrongdoing, especially since the child’s injury occurred after the official working hours due to the father’s delay in taking his child.

One of the employees submitted a memorandum affirming that she was just an employee who carried out what was required of her, and that she had been assigned to supervise a large number of children. She insisted that there was no negligence on her part.

The court affirmed that the dependence of the two employees on the owner of the nursery was proved and that they worked under his direction and control, and that the son of the complainant was harmed as a result of the negligence of the two employees while performing their duties, which made the owner of the nursery responsible for their mistakes.

The court rejected the appeal and obligated the owner of the nursery to pay fees and expenses.