Compensation of Work Injuries - Assignment Example

Tort Assignment 2 Tort Assignment 2 Systems to compensate injuries related to work started emerging during the 19th century, withthe rapid growth in industrialisation being the most obvious contributory factor. In due course, it followed that there were growing concerns regarding the human cost related to illness and accidents brought about by the factory system. These developments gave rise to the concept of workers’ compensation, which is a type of insurance that provides medical benefits and wage replacement to employees who suffer injuries while in employment. Different countries may have different types of compensation schemes and laws for injured employees, but they are all intended to guard against the negative consequences of inability to earn an income caused by injury. Most industrialised states are exhibiting a renewed interest in their systems of personal injury litigation, which can be viewed as an inclination towards responding to personal injury through legal redress. For example, in the United Kingdom, there is the Workers Compensation Act, of which the entire Part 3 and several provisions of Part 1 are applicable to occupational safety and health (IIDB, 2014). Sections of Part 4 are applicable to safety and health decisions appeals. Therefore, workers’ compensation is a scheme where employers must either pay or provide insurance that will pay medical expenses and lost wages of workers who get injured while performing their jobs. This paper will show that Tom, Dick and Harry have different rights and compensation levels from a dry cleaner they worked for before being retired on health grounds after developing different diseases caused by a chemical they used at work. Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, an employer is defined as anyone with one or more workers who work for them in an industry by either a hiring or apprenticeship contract which is implied, expressed, oral or written. On the other hand, a worker is defined from multiple perspectives, but the most suitable in the case of Tom, Dick and Harry would be anyone under apprenticeship or contract of service whether implied, expressed, oral or written. Tort law defines a duty of care as a legal obligation owed by an individual to others, whereby a reasonable standard of care must be exercised while performing acts that are potentially harmful (Bagshaw & McBride, 2008). It also requires that the harm must be foreseeable. In the case of Squeakyclean, the company had known for 10 years that Blastoff, a chemical fluid used in the process of dry cleaning, causes a potentially fatal lung disease. Despite such knowledge, which implies that the harm was foreseeable, the employers of Tom, Dick and Harry never provided protective masks to protect them from the chemical. Tom’s case is more straightforward than that of Dick and Harry. Tom developed the lung disease directly associated with Blastoff, which was an essential chemical in his duty. Squeakyclean owed him a duty of care in that he ought to have been issued with protective gear. It is not upon a worker to adopt any of the appliances and improvements that an employer has failed to provide under their obligation of reasonable care, which constitutes negligence on the part of the employer (Elliot & Quinn, 2007). Tom can, therefore, establish that Squeakyclean failed to provide a reasonably secure working environment even with the full knowledge of the health hazards of Blastoff. Taking a case law example, Toronto Power Co v Paskwan AC 734 of 1915, the duty to provide a proper working environment is directly upon the employer (Reville, Boden & Biddle, 2003). Further, the employer cannot delegate such duties to his servants. In the case law, it was held that a worker was killed due to the employer’s negligence to install safety appliances that would protect against blocks falling from an overhead crane. This was in spite of knowing that blocks often fell off the overhead crane, and the harm was therefore foreseeable. It was further held that the duty of installing such safety appliances could not be delegated to the workers, even though they were the ones directly exposed to risk. Similarly, despite the fact that Tom was aware of the health hazards he was exposed to by working in the dry cleaner without a gas mask, his employer could not delegate to him the responsibility to acquire one. It was the employer’s duty, and Tom can show that the duty was breached. Dick developed skin cancer following the spillage of Blastoff on his hands. Since it is not mentioned whether Squeakyclean or the dry cleaning industry in general, was aware of the possibility of contact with Blastoff causing skin cancer, the burden of proof is on him. Therefore, he must establish that a duty existed and his employer breached it through negligence. However, general industry rules dictate the use of gloves when handling chemicals, which the employer still failed to provide. In the case law Clark v The Chief Constable of Essex Police EWHC (QB) of 2006, it was held that the employer’s liability states that harm must be foreseeable (Reville, Boden & Biddle, 2003). Dick can prove that the harm was foreseeable because the employer failed to fulfil part of his duties, according to the Workplace Regulations 1992 (SI 3004) concerning the welfare, safety and health of workers. This regulation provides, in section 5(1), (2) and (3 (a) and (b)), that it is the employers’ duty to provide and maintain in working conditions the systems, devices and equipment of the workplace (IIDB, 2014). It is the employer’s responsibility to protect their workers, visitors and contractors from injuries, accidents and health hazards. Therefore, they must issue safety wear which includes safety gloves and dust masks. It is further provided that the systems, devices and equipment that the regulations apply to are those whose fault, or failure to comply with the regulations, will result in liability on the employers’ part (Elliot & Quinn, 2007). Dick’s employer breached his duty under, because lack of providing protective gear in the form of gloves can be viewed in a similar perspective as failing to maintain the workplace, as well as devices and equipment in proper working conditions. It does not matter that the particular harm of skin cancer might have been unknown, but industry rules provide that workers who handle chemicals should be issued with gloves. Dick was owed a duty of care that had to ensure he does not suffer from unreasonable physical or mental or health loss. Squeakyclean, therefore, breached its duty of care to Dick and he should be entitled to recovery. According to tort law, this is negligence that bears liability as a result of careless behavior rather than intentional acts or omissions (Elliot & Quinn, 2007). Principally, the tort law of negligence provides that rational care must be exercised to avert foreseeable harm that others are exposed to. In that sense, Squeakyclean was aware of that workers did not have protective gear even as they worked with chemicals. Harry’s case is more complicated because he has not established that he developed stomach cancer as a result of inhaling Blastoff, a side effect of the medication he was on or his daily consumption of pasta. To be entitled to compensation, he must prove that the injury suffered is as a result of Squeakyclean’s negligence. He must show that he developed stomach cancer as a result of Squeakyclean failing to apply reasonable care in the same manner a prudent employer would have done. Negligence suits have conventionally been considered in stages (Elliot & Quinn, 2007). These stages, refered to as elements, will be of critical significance in the case of Harry because tort laws require that a plaintiff prove all the relevant elements according to his claims. This means that, for example, if his claim relates to a particular tort that has three elements, he must prove all three of them. If he only proves two and fails to prove one, then he will not be entitled to compensation. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him to prove that he indeed developed stomach cancer from inhaling Blastoff and not the other two possible causes that he was also exposed to and had nothing to do with Squeakyclean. This is because not all injuries that occur at the workplace can be compensated for by the workers compensation. In the case law Hein v Longview Fibre 707 P 2d689 of 1985, a worker riding a motorcycle was hit and killed by a colleague who was driving into the work premises during work hours (Parsons, 2001). The accident took place within five feet of their working premises, but it was held that the death was not compensable because it was outside the premises, the less than five feet notwithstanding. Similarly, Harry must show that his cancer was caused by Blastoff while he performed his duties at his designated workstation. Workplace injuries, or workplace accidents, are those that occur during employment, at the designated sites and are related to the workers’ job description and job task. Essentially, Harry must prove that his stomach cancer is directly related to his job and, particularly, not being protected from the inhalation of Blastoff. To be compensated by Squeakyclean, he must show that he did not have skin cancer before coming under their employment and it was caused by Blastoff. In conclusion, any of Tom, Dick and Harry can get compensated if they prove that their cancers and retirement were caused by reasons related to their employment, and that they were caused while they worked. They could also get compensated if they got their injuries while on training programs approved by their employer. Each individual level of disability determines the compensation each one of them gets. The requirement that injury must arise out of employment is meant to ensure that a causal connection occurs between the injury and work. The normal UK standard that would entitle them to compensation is a minimum of 14% disability (IIDB, 2014). The objective of workers’ compensation is to restore injured employees as economically and quickly as possible to a status as if they were still actively earning their wages like productive workers, without injuring their employer’s business. References Bagshaw, R., & McBride, N. (2008). Tort law. London: Longman. Elliot, C., & Quinn, F. (2007). Tort law. London: Longman. Parsons, C. (2001). Accidents at work. London: City University Business School. Douglas, M., & Tahlia, D. (2002). Workers compensation 101. Pennsylvania: Douglas. Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB). (2014). Benefits & credits. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/industrial-injuries-disablement-benefit Reville, R., Boden, L., & Biddle, J. (2003). Comparing compensation adequacy: Workers compensation permanent disability benefits in five states. California: Rand. Read More

 

Read More