The Univers News – The family of an employee of Airbus, Gilles Dudde, died in 2005 of an accident work, saw the court Thursday of Toulouse rejected as “inadmissible” request of prosecution for manslaughter against Airbus and three colleagues the victim.
An initial survey had been dismissed and a complaint with a civil relatives of the victim had led to a dismissal, before the family seeks the procedure of “direct quote”, seven years after the death of young rights.
Two safety devices that could have prevented the tragedy were inoperative
This 33 year old mechanic, died Feb. 10, 2005 to plant Colomiers, near Toulouse, crushed by the landing gear of an Airbus A300 on which he worked, when another worker employed on hydraulic tests had caused the closing of the shutters of the front of Gilles Dudde.
Two safety devices that could have prevented the tragedy were ineffective: the hydraulic system of the aircraft was not disabled, and Gilles Dudde had worked while corsets (rods blocking the nose gear doors) were removed. The “direct quote” was not found admissible “in the absence of new charge,” reported the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Emmanuel Tricoire.
“There has never been challenged in court on this issue, it still prohibits the family access to a trial, without argument, the institution may scare Airbus justice” lamented Mr. Tricoire, in adding: “We plan to appeal the Court of Appeal of Toulouse will be obliged to argue otherwise is to attract the wrath of the court of cassation.”
“Nobody could say that Mr. Dudde had removed the safety corsets”
Airbus declined to “comment on a judicial decision.” The Camille and Associates law firm representing a co-Gilles Dudde “did not want to comment on this issue.” The quote was Airbus, the head of the security procedure, the immediate supervisor and Gilles Dudde employee below it that triggered the closure of the landing gear.
According to Mr. Tricoire, “nobody could say that Mr. Dudde had removed the corset security and it is sure that the procedure prescribed for off hydraulic pressure of the aircraft had not been breached. ‘ This procedure to prevent a possible false move is catastrophic “was not systematically performed but still appeared in the range of work” (the rules to follow), according to counsel.
According to Mr. Tricoire, the recognition of a criminal conviction on appeal would go to court for social security cases of misconduct by the employer to obtain more than the basic compensation paid to the civilian side