Purchase Solution

Employer culpability in refusing to implement safety measure

Not what you're looking for?

Ask Custom Question

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.

Purchase this Solution
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.

Solution Preview

Question 1:
Reference: (Ford Pinto Case)
http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html

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 provided by:
Raushaun Rigsby, MSc
Education
  • Associates of Arts , Lone Star Community College
  • Bachelor of Science , Sam Houston State University
  • Masters of Science, Kaplan University
  • Masters of Science , Kaplan University
Recent Feedback
  • "Thank you however I have two questions: 1.) where in this passage is the actual problem statement? 2.) if you used references can you please provide them? This is great work and I am so grateful. "
  • "Thank you very much"
  • "excellent analysis"
  • "graet job very helpful"
  • "Thank you, excellent and very detailed."
Purchase this Solution
Free BrainMass Quizzes
Title VII Laws

Learn the basics of the laws under Title VII.

Constitutional Law Rights

How much do you know about Constitutional Law Rights? Find out with this quiz!

Evidence

Do you know your evidence objections? Find out with this quiz!

Contract Requirments

How much do you know about the legal requirements for a contract? Find out with this quiz!

Criminal Defenses Review

Test your knowledge of the basics of criminal law and defenses with this quiz.

View More Free Quizzes
Related BrainMass Solutions

  • OHSA High Risk Area

    An employer cannot terminate an employee for refusing to work in a high danger or high risk area. The part that is subject to interpretation is what exactly constitutes high risk.

  • Adverse action for refusing work - Analysis of rights

    425727 Employee protection against adverse employer action: workplace conditions or tasks Under what circumstances is an employee protected against adverse employer action for refusing to work in a particular area or perform a particular task?

  • Workplace Health and Safety Requirements: Firing

    employer.

  • Employer Right to Know

    In most situations, the consequences of refusing to answer any questions on an employment application would lead to the refusal of the employer to consider that applicant for employment within that particular organization, which could be both illegal

  • Rights of at-will employees

    The only illegal reasons for what the at-will employee cannot be fired are discrimination (on the bases of race, religion, gender etc.), refusing work due to workplace health and safety issues, and/or standing up to illegal workplace activities such as

  • Sal's Seafood: Religious Discrimination

    In this case, the employer offered an accommodation to which LaTonya refused. Because sanitary reasons include the health and safety of workers, the employer can claim that an undue hardship exists from any further accommodation.

  • This post addresses a wrongful termination case.

    Mark cannot be fired by law for refusing to carry out an employer-directed act that is illegal. In this country, when you're an employee, you're an employee-at-will.

  • Privacy Issues in the Workplace

    The employees should have the right of refusing to be tested for drugs or alcohol, however, in those industries where the safety factor is important the employer has the right to test the employee for drugs or alcohol.

  • Juvenile Justice: Evaluation (MacArthur Foundation Reports)

    justice system, which was designed to rehabilitate the immature adolescent while balancing public safety concerns."

  • Legal Issues in Human Resource Management

    . // Analysis of OSH Act guidelines for employers The Occupational Safety and Health act of 1970 consists of many guidelines for employers, which are necessary for the employer in order to develop and implement effective safety policies for the

View More Related Solutions