Ratcliff v Sprint Missouri, Inc - Essay Example

Sprint was careless as the sub-floor opening was not barricaded, and no warning sign was put in to prevent him from accessing the area.
• Thus, because of their carelessness of Sprint, he sustained an injury in the left ankle, pain, nervousness, emotional distress, and anxiety of body and mind; which are disabling, progressive and permanent.

• He could not resume work or the daily activities that he could do, he needed a wheelchair for assistance.
Safety factors
According to OSHA standards, there must be regulations concerning the guarding of floor and wall holes that may harm any individual within the workplace. According to the guidelines, when a floor hole cover is not in place, then the hole ought to be protected by a removable standard barricade or someone must be allocated at the given spot, to warn other individuals (www.osha.gov). Despite this, Sprint did not consent to the negligence claim based on a lack of OSHA standards. Moreover, an employee of Sprint completed an incident report the same day (May 28, 1997) the accident took place, but it was protected by the work product and attorney-client privileges.

Judgment
The verdict was Sprint was not at fault, and Mr. Ratcliff was completely at fault. This was in favor of Sprint. This was based on the fact the sufficiency of evidence claim was meritless as Mr. Ratcliff stepped into a hole that was visible and his claimed injury was caused before the incident and mental condition. According to the testimony of Mr. Bondurant, he was splicing wires with his feet in the opening when the incident took place. Moreover, multiple witnesses saw him working in the hole, and they knew where the hole was. Nevertheless, the trial court did not neglect its judgment in acknowledging evidence of workers' compensation claim, as well as the exclusion of an incident report.

In addition, the court’s exclusion of OSHA regulations was not a detrimental mistake. Mr. Ratcliff announced his financial condition in the case when asked by his lawyer on direct examination concerning his failure to get medical attention, and he uttered that he could not “afford that option”; this is an exception to the general rule of inadmissibility of collateral source expenses. The defense was able to attack this allegation of financial strain by introducing evidence of his worker’s compensation claim settlement. Read More