This is not an editing error. A zero fingering in some publisher's urtext editions of piano music (e.g. Henle) is a heads-up that the note is also written for the other hand (as when left and right hand figures coincide on a note). In this case, the note is being *held* by the other hand and is not to be restruck. 

Henle usually makes a general comment (e.g. in the preface) about the fingering (e.g. all was done by the editor) or uses a combination of roman and italics to distinguish the editor's from the composer's (e.g. in Chopin). (In the case of Henle editions, the fingering is often done by someone other than the editor.)

IMO, the fast tempo of the piece rather obviously rules out restriking the note and the way Scriabin notated this is much cleaner and clearer than writing a rest for the left hand.

The note isn't technically omitted -- only the (re)attack is. If you did play the note again with the left hand, you would be shortening the duration of the 2nd note of the corresponding r.h. triplet. You can't have your cake and eat it too. 

Another way of thinking about this is that, at tempo, the left- and right-hand notes *effectively coincide*, and since the right hand has the melody, it logically should play the note. Also, you want to avoid entangling the hands.

I'll add another example of a "zero" fingering when I find one. They aren't that common and are hard to remember offhand :)