Employer's Duty of Care and Issues of Compensation - Research Paper Example

This issue can be related to the case Hatton vs. Sutherland held in 1998, which involved a dispute concerning compensation of injuries at work place (Legal Information Institute, 2010). Jake’s action in association to his scope of employment Scope of employment is determined by the role taken by an employee, which is in accordance with his/her employment contract. This will also mean that an employer will refer to the contract to undertake any action concerning injuries suffered in work places.

Jake’s scope of action in reference to his employment agreement entails that he should be responsible for checking brakes, tires, oil and transmissions in vehicles from the showroom. As per the employment scope, individual employees are to be compensated for any case of injury, which might occur while in a working station (Steingold, 2010). This is beneficial to the employer in case there is no possibility of employee delivering as per the scope of employment. This will mean that the employer will not take any responsibility actions being undertaken by the employee.

Jake’s role is service delivery, and he has been authorized to change the oils in the vehicles regardless of the situations with the vehicles (US Legal, 2011). However, Jake decided to service the whole vehicle. . It is for this reason that I reckon that Jake’s action is within his scope of employment. If Jake had been hired to change the oil only and not to service the vehicles, then he would have been acting out of his scope (Steingold, 2010). Herman’s responsibility for Jake’s injury Jake’s injury that occurred while at work is the responsibility of Herman.

During the time of the injury, he was working within his scope of employment. Therefore, he was injured while he was on duty. That is why the employer should be responsible as stated in the scope of employment. This scope is usually determined under the doctrine of superiors, which states that the employer is answerable (Nolo Law for All, 2010). This doctrine also underlines that an employer should assume responsibility of the employee since he is superior and the employee works under him.

That is the reason why the employer should be accountable for any injury suffered by an employee during the time he/she is on duty at work. The employees are also covered under the insurance package of the organizations, which means their employers should compensate them in case of injuries at work. In this case, Jake is under the protection of State workers’ compensation laws. This ensures that employees are compensated for any injuries incurred during the working hours. This puts Herman into the picture as he is supposed to be liable to compensate the injury incurred by Jake (Nolo Law for All, 2010).

Jake’s overtime payment Jake is not eligible for overtime payment as he is among the management team in the company owned by Herman. This is because from their dialog we understand that he is on permanent payroll, compared to the