Western High Court: Employer Liable for Damages After Employee Was Hit in the Head by Chest Freezer Lid

On June 1, 2026, the Western High Court of Denmark issued a judgment concerning an employer’s liability for damages after an employee was hit in the head by the lid of a chest freezer while she was emptying the freezer as part of the defrosting process.

The High Court found that the employer had acted negligently by failing to ensure that the work could be performed in a manner consistent with applicable health and safety requirements. The employer was therefore held liable for damages. The High Court reduced the damages awarded by the city court because part of the employee’s period of sick leave was not caused by the workplace accident.

Employer must ensure that work can be performed safely

In assessing the employer’s liability for damages, the Western High Court of Denmark placed emphasis on the fact that the chest freezer was fitted with a self-made lid without a safety device capable of holding the lid in an upright position. At the same time, the freezer was positioned against a wall in a small storage room with limited space, which made it difficult to empty and defrost the freezer in a safe manner. The court also emphasized that it was foreseeable that the employee would perform the defrosting as part of her work.

On that basis, the High Court found that the employer had failed to ensure that the work task could be performed in a manner consistent with applicable health and safety requirements.

Calculation of damages and compensation

Following the accident on October 21, 2021, the employee was on full-time sick leave until January 3, 2022, when she partially resumed work. However, on January 8, 2022, she fractured her ankle, following which she was again placed on full-time sick leave.

The city court found that the employee’s sick leave after January 8, 2022 was caused both by the workplace accident and by the symptoms resulting from her ankle fracture. The city court further found that, even if she had not fractured her ankle, she would not have been able to resume full-time work because of the symptoms resulting from the workplace accident. On that basis, the city court awarded the employee the full amount claimed as compensation for pain and suffering and loss of earnings.

Based in part on the Danish Medico-Legal Council’s (Retslægerådet) responses in the case, the High Court found that it had not been established that all of the employee’s symptoms were caused by the workplace accident. The High Court therefore found that it had not been established that the employee’s period of sick leave after January 8, 2022 was entirely attributable to the workplace accident. On that basis, the High Court reduced the employee’s claims for compensation for pain and suffering and loss of earnings.

Littler comments

The judgment illustrates the importance of employers continuously ensuring that the workplace organization and work equipment make it possible to perform work in a manner consistent with applicable health and safety requirements. The case demonstrates that even minor changes to work equipment or the organization of the workplace may have significant implications for an employer’s liability for damages arising from workplace accidents.

In addition, the judgment illustrates that the necessary causal connection must exist between a workplace accident and an employee’s claims for compensation for pain and suffering and loss of earnings, as this may affect the amount of damages and compensation awarded.

Read more about employers’ liability for damages arising from industrial injuries, health and safety inspections, reporting industrial injuries, and the number of reported industrial injuries and occupational illnesses in Denmark in our article, “Employer Liability for Work-Related Injuries”.

At Littler, we advise on health and safety regulations, employers’ responsibility for organizing the workplace with a view to preventing workplace accidents, and other employment-law issues. Contact us here.

Disclaimer: The above does not constitute, and cannot replace, legal advice.

Reference to the judgment: https://pro.karnovgroup.dk/b/documents/7001031427