Workers Are Injured in the Line of Duty - Case Study Example

? Compare and Contrast Unit Introduction CaseNo.3:04-CV-254-KRG-KAP Plaintiff, v. Cooper Industries, ltd is of a wrongful death and survivor action from fatal injury that was suffered by Paul Leonard as work place, namely Altoona Pipe and Steel Company, on July 10, 2002. The plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the plate clamp manufactured by the defendant caused the injury to Leonard and puts a strict liability claiming that the clamp was designed defectively and claimed negligence that the clamp was designed negligently. A breach of warrant claims that the clamp was not merchantable. The defendant filed for three claims. However, docket no.20 claims that the summary judgment should only be granted as strict liability, as well as breach of warranty claims that the negligence claims should proceed to jury trial. Leonard was thirty years and worked as a painter at the Altoona and Steel Company in Altoona. The federal rule of civil procedure requires that the pleading. Admissions on file, answers to interrogatories, together with affidavits, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material proof of non-existence or its existence and might affect the outcome of the suit under the law. Case two is about Klewinowski alleges that he was injured on March 20, 2008 who was working as a laborer for non-party Tully Construction on Houston Reconstruction project in Manhattan. A light pole knocked down and struck him. He was induced coma for eight days and sustained numerous fractures and a broken pelvis. The construction area is a public street owned by the city, in which the city had given Tully a contract, which entered into a contract with Welsbach, an electrical contractor to perform electrical work as erecting temporary poles. The city is also said to enter a separate account with A& W to perform engineering services. However, at the time of the accident, Klewinowski is said to be standing at the west side of the median waiting to begin his work. Another employee who was working besides him was operating a caterpillar with a boom attached to it. He was using the boom to move the pipes hat were located on one side of the street. Klewinowski claims that he is entitled to labor law judgment claiming the law compels that strict liability on agents and owners as well as the defendants to meet their criteria. He also claims that the city is liable for his injuries because it is the one who gave him the project, as well as Welsbach and A&W who were obliged to monitor the work, in addition to the use of caterpillar and neglecting the concrete and overhead wire. However, Welsbach, A&W, and the city oppose the plaintiff’s motion to seek the judgment dismissing his labor laws and other cross claims among them. Normally, when the defendants adopt each other arguments as to the reason why the plaintiff’s complains should be dismissed, they are said to raise opposing arguments as to why, and if the complains are not dismissed, they are entitled to summary judgments across their cross claims. These two cases are similar in the sense that, the plaintiffs here are workers of the above explained companies who are injured in the line of duty, and a result sues the respective companies. CaseNo.3:04-CV-254-KRG-KAP, Paul Leonard suffered a fatal attack at his work place while Klewinowski in case two was induced coma for eight days and sustained numerous fractures and a broken pelvis in the construction area. They both accuse their employees of negligence and manufacturers of the tools they were using at the time the accident occurs. However, restatement of torts claims that the defense who contributes to the negligence is not available for torts or where the defendant is found guilty of willful and wanton misconduct. It is also unavailable when the defendant violates a statute which is designed to protect the plaintiff. Additionally, it also states that a person who sells any products that are in defective conditions irrationally to the consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm (Kern &David, 2001). Leonard’s case the beam’s dimension were not in the record and, therefore, there was some confusion in the recording parts of the I-beam. All the three plaintiff’s claims relied on the premises of the factual, in that if the clamp was designed differently, then the accident would not have occurred. Therefore, the plaintiff claims that the product was defectively designed and the defendant was negligent in designing it and as a result, the clamp is said to breach the merchantability warrant. Additionally, they are good examples of workplace risks that occur or can possibly occur at work places. For example, some of the work place risks includes, incorrectly lifting heavy objects, working near roads, hazards trips, and allergic reactions among others. According to Underwood (2000), the liability of the occupier is one of the tort’s law that concerns the care of duty in that those who occupy through lease or ownership owes to individuals who trespass or visits. Additionally, it deals with liability that is caused from the accidents that are caused by dangerous and defective conditions. The occupier’s liability act claims that the owner of the premises should make sure that in all circumstances, the trespass or the visitor is safe in using the premises for the purposes of which he in invited to be there. This is the standard that the occupier is supposed to meet that is no different from the negligence law. However, the owner of the premises would not at all case be liable for damage caused by negligence especially independent contractors, meaning that he will not be liable for damages caused by faulty lifts which in this case is another person’s negligence. Therefore, in Leonard’s case, the clamp is said to have not been used for its purpose at the time of the accident and therefore, according to law, one cannot claim that it was defective. Just like the owner of the premises cannot be liable for injury caused by the person tripping over an item, he cannot also be liable for such an injury. Such cases can be referred to as contributory negligence that are conducted by the plaintiff, who does not take measures for protecting himself under the legal standards from unreasonable risks. Additionally, under the common law, the defense of negligence contributory is an absolute defense and therefore, jurisdictions adopt the doctrine of comparing negligence, in that the amount of plaintiff’s is reduced by the extent to which he contributed to the risk ( Kern &David, 2001). References Kern.A &David.A (2001),American Public School Law, 5th edition. Belmont, CA: West/Thomson Learning. Underwood.J (2000), "Negligence." In A School Law Primer–Part II, ed. National School Boards Association Council of School Attorneys. Alexandria, NSBA Council of School Attorneys Read More