Employer’s Liability.
Employer’s liability is a section of Tort Law that deals with the liability, employers’ have for occupational injuries to their employees arising from their negligence. At the start there was a slow start to impose liability in negligence on employers in relation to injuries to their employees. This meant there was little protection for employees within their workspace in respect to health and safety.
Employer’s liability didn’t occur until the early part of the nineteenth century. The laissez-faire philosophy conquered this time period and stated that work related injuries were naturally going to happen but was essential in the long run. It was stated in Potts v Plunkett that if the employees…
“Chose to accept dangerous employment for an appropriate payment, they should not impose on their employer the obligation to compensate them when things go wrong.”
This policy effected all the legal concepts of implied contractual terms, absence of legal duty of care , contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk and the doctrine of “common employment” during this time period. Eventually the doctrine was changed and employers were responsible to different types of liability caused to their employees by the negligence of their fellow employees. Overtime, the previous judicial mechanisms were broken down and has been fast and essential. Eventually the doctrine of “common employment” and the other enforced concepts were repealed in the form of statue; “Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1958”.
Other systems have also been set up to help people who requite compensation for work related injuries and was established in 1897, originally under judicial control, the Workman’s compensation Act 1897 and the Workmen’s...
... middle of paper ...
... Barclay v An Post [1998] Ir Jur Rep 31 at 40.
Department of Posts and Telegraphs
Section 2; Civil Liability Act 1961
The leading English authority is Walker v Northumberland [1995] 1 All ER 737
McHugh v Minister for Defence, High Court, 28 January 1999
Curran v Cadbury [2000] 2 ILRM 343
White Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1510
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1AC 410
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1AC 310
Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 2 AC 455
Curran v Cadbury [2000] 2 ILRM 343, plaintiff sustained psychiatric injury when she turned on a machine where she worked, believing she killed or seriously injured a fellow employee who was working inside the machine without her knowledge. The judges classified her as a primary victim.
Mc Mahon & Binchy
The worker alleges that he suffered a stroke due to the pressures experienced at work, including negotiating tensions between managerial staff and other employees, increasing volume of demands due to a MYOB file being corrupted and policies and procedures requiring being written, implemented, and presented, as well as material changes to his role. The worker's case is that the stress contributed in a material way to the occurrence of the stroke such as to make it compensable pursuant to section 7 of the RTW Act.
(5 points) Based on the facts of the case you have selected, is it possible the employer can also be held criminally liable? Explain your answer.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
Vicarious liability is a common law concept that refers to the liability that arises when one party, such as an employer, is legally liable for the acts or omissions of another party, such as an employee. This is because employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees and those of others who come into contact with them and their business. Does vicarious liability expose businesses to too much liability? In the case study 4.1 (Tardif v. Wiebe), we learned that vicarious liability does not always applied on employers for employee’s wrongdoings.
It is an employer's duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees and other people who might be affected by their business. Employers must do whatever is reasonably practicable to achieve this.
In response to many theories of liability to tort, it is important to understand two major defences to negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risk, when handling cases. This is beneficial for defendant to reduce liability when the plaintiff has succeeded to establish the three elements of negligence. In relation to hospitality industry, defences to negligence were frequently used to protect and reduce liability of the hospitality establishment. Even till today, although defences are developing and ever changing, the underlying principles however are substantially the same.
In this essay about tort law, I talked about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do this, I provided a background of the event, applied facts of the case to applicable law, summarized lessons of the week as they related to this case and provided a plausible argument for the parties involved. This is a prime example of breach of a tort law and the case is currently in the process of litigation. It is likely that the parties involved will reach an agreement out of court but may in fact be brought to trial.
Hortwitz, McCall and Horwitz (2006) examined workplace injuries using Rhode Island’s workers’ compensation claim from 1984 to 2002.When the cases were analyzed it showed that females were more likely to file claims it also showed that males suffered more from injuries that lasted longer and had higher costs. The costs associated with these claims were more than $7 million dollars there was average claim of $100 a claim. Furthermore, there were 6 deaths that were reports within the 5 year span.
The engineer breached the duty of care through failing his/her duty to warn by providing insufficient warning on the limitation of the application. His/her software application caused the structural firm to designed a defective bridge and was the direct cause of many deaths. The junior engineer should be held liable for his/her product due to the principle known as product liability. This is evident in the case study because deaths and injuries due to defective product as a result of the software were foreseeable. Looking at the 1971 case of Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited et al., the manufacturers must not only instruct the user how to properly use the products but also warn the user the consequences of misuse []. This precedent case proves that the engineer failed to warn the structural firm of the limitation of the application as well as failed to warn the consequences of using the application beyond its capabilities. However, the information technology firm may be held vicariously liable for the mistake of the junior engineer as he/she developed the software application during his/her employment. The reason being the employer generally has deeper pocket than the employee [] and the collapse was a result of the junior engineer developing the application under the authority of the employer. Thus, the junior engineer is one of the tortfeasor to which the information firm maybe vicariously liable for his/her
The hospital under vicarious liability is based on Respondeat Superior (let the master answer) for the negligence actions of its contractors/employees. This is the responsibility of physicians for negligent actions of hospital employees ranging from nurses to x-ray techs. Through Corporate Liability the hospital itself is liable for the negligent actions of its workers.
Also, the tort victim is usually sufficiently compensated through insurance rather than if they claimed against the employee as the master has the ‘deepest pocket’[2]. However, recent developments in the law on vicarious liability not only makes the employer liable for acts that are ‘directly’ connected with what they are employed to do, but it is now established that an employer may be liable for the unauthorised acts of an employee, where those acts are ‘closely connected’ with the nature of the wrongdoer’s employment. The principle of vicarious liability can also burden the operation of a business by placing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on an employer. More money needs to be spent on training, employee’s characteristics need to be assessed and higher costs will be passed on to the consumer.
During the nineteenth and early twentieth century if a worker was a victim of workplace accident there was no compensation or requirement of the employer to support rehabilitation. Employers were not responsible for injured workers or accidents that happened in the workplace. The main legal doctrine of Assumption of Risk governed workplace hazards, which required workers to assume and accept all the risks affiliated with their occupation (Share, 2012). In the 1900 's many diseases and injuries resulted due to unsafe or hazardous working condition. "The Royal Commission on the Relations of Labour and Capital reported in 1889 that many workers were being hurt on the job and condemned the state of working conditions in several industries" (CPHA, 2012). However, the federal government at the time did not act on the results of the commission report. In 1914, the province of Ontario introduced legislation where, "workers would be eligible for guaranteed no-fault benefits from a system that was wholly funded by employers. In exchange, employers were freed from legal liability" (CPHA, 2012). This was the first time the idea came up that injured employees should be compensated no matter who was at fault for the accident. This was the sign of the beginnings of change, but perspectives on health and safety still held employees responsible and accountable for all injuries and
Mullender, R & Speirs, A (2000) Negligence, Psychiatric Injury, and the Altruism Principle, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20,4, 645
From the 1990s, the reports that cover the compensation cases increased dramatically in the mass media (Almond, 2004). There is a view that a huge number of tort cases in the ‘compensation culture’ are unjustified and unfair. In the mid-1990s, the term ‘compensation culture’ first appeared in a famous British newspaper (Levin, 1993). Actually, this is an extreme view, which will be criticized in this paper. This essay emphasizes the compensation culture is a myth (Morris, 2007). There are three reasons: Firstly, the data of the tort claims declined in recent years. Secondly, some victims do not receive the compensation or enough compensation that they deserve. Thirdly, the mass media and public organizations created the ‘compensation
Accidents occur in the workplace but in secret. These most of the time lead to physical and mental injuries that might affect the worker way of living for the rest of their lives. It is estimated that more than 337 million workers get injured in their place of work or in the course of work every year leading to work-related diseases causing about 2.3 million deaths per year (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).