In Abdulino master allowed a drunk worker to repair the tank

The tragedy occurred on March 9, 2026 during repair work in the car assembly shop of a local enterprise. The master, who was responsible for labor protection and fire safety, allowed an employee who was intoxicated to work. In addition, the court found that in preparation for the repair of the railway tank safety requirements were violated: the workplace was prepared improperly, mandatory procedures were not carried out before the start of work. In particular, the gas-air environment inside the tank boiler was not checked, and the necessary permits for repairs were not.

Inside the tank there was an explosion of fuel and air mixture, from which the worker died.

The accused pleaded guilty and repented, and apologized to the son of the deceased.

There are two things that are going on here. The first is a combination of violations: a drunk worker admitted for repair, lack of permits and an unverified gas air environment inside the tank. Each of these violations alone could have led to tragedy, and together they made the explosion almost inevitable. The second is punishment. A suspended term and a one-year ban on work related to labor protection are actually the minimum bar for the consequences that led to the death of a person. And here the question arises not to the court, but to the system: if the master allowed the drunk to work and did not carry out mandatory procedures, then control at the enterprise was either absent or was formal.

And do you think that a suspended sentence is enough for the death of a worker through negligence, or in such cases the punishment should be stricter?