Explore BrainMass

Employer culpability in refusing to implement safety measure

Question 1:
A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in a collision with another tram, which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with a system known as 'dead man's handle,' a system in use on Sydney's trains. This would have stopped the tram and avoided the accident. The device had been rejected by the tramway authorities because it was felt that it could cause drivers to become tired, irritated and inefficient. There was no evidence of any similar device in use on two-man trams anywhere in the world. Will the plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim? Explain your reasoning.

Question 2:
Jonas was employed by Rapid Couriers as a courier. His father was employed at the same company and worked with his son. One day while making a delivery, the son lost sight of his father, who was directing him, and accidentally ran over him. Discuss whether the father would successfully sue his employer.

Note: You should refer relevant Acts and cases in your answer.
Maximum word length is 2000 words.

Solution Preview

Question 1:
Reference: (Ford Pinto Case)

The plaintiff may win a judgment but it would be predicated upon what is commonly known as the Risk/Benefit Analysis emanating from the famous Ford Pinto Case. In this case the Ford Motor Company chose to keep a known dangerous fuel tank on their vehicles despite the probable injuries that would occur and deaths. The company factored the amount that it ...

Solution Summary

This solution analyzes a hypothetical case that critiques the Risk/Benefit Analysis that employers use to determine if a product that can help improve safety will be worth the costs or if lawsuits that would stem from injury to customers would be cheaper allowing the company to justify not replacing defective products based on a Risk/Analysis basis emanating from the FORD PINTO lawsuit case.