Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of CASE STUDY:
WHO SHOULD PAY
Ethical issues / concerns that were raised by the case
B&C Steel did not apply ethics of caring to their employee-Elliot although that is their negligence.
Elliot has his own rights to claim and sue those companies to get back the deserve compensation with his injuries.
The employer is responsible for ensuring that all their employees receive certain basic employment rights
YES, IT IS FAIR
"Any company leasing or contracting out any part of the work to any lessee or subcontractor, shall be construed to be an employer and shall be liable to pay only compensation for injury resulting therefrom to said lessees and subcontractors and their employees"
In your judgement, and from ethical point of view, should Turner Construction and/or B&C Steel pay for all or part of the $2,428,000 (if part, indicate which part)? Explain your view.
In your judgment, is the Colorado worker's compensation law to which Turner Construction appealed fair? Explain your view
TURNER CONSTRUCTION entered into a rental agreement with MABEY BRIDGE and SHORE for the the component parts for the bridge.
The rental including Elliot which will be the supervisor for the construction.
Turner Construction also subcontracted with B&C Steel to construct and launch the bridge.
When the launch began, Elliot was on the side of the river where the bridge was launched.
The bridge was suspended in the air over the river with a crane on the other side of the river attached to a corner at the bridge by a nylon strap.
The retaining wall that was support the crane begin to collapse.
Elliot decide to walk across the bridge to tell the worker to stop but when he was on top of the bridge, he gave the OSHA all-stop signal that not to move anything.
But suddenly the bridge moved and Elliot fell. As a result, Elliot sustained numerous pelvic injuries including a several urethra.
Worked for Mabey Bridge and shore.
Jobs: to instruct and inspect the bridge according to Mabey Bridge high standard
General contractor hired to Invesco Field at the Mile High Stadium
Jobs: Installing a temporary pedestrian bridge over the Platte River
Subcontractor by Turner Construction
Jobs: Pick up the bridge, put it together and install it for Turner Construction
Sued the TC and B&C Steel for negligence resulting the economic loses ($28,00), non-economic loses ($1,200,000) and permanent impairment ($1,200,0000).
Denied the responsibility because it was Elliot's temporary employer and workers compensation law only required employers to pay the economic loses.
Claimed the was not responsible because according to the law a company is not responsible for negligence when an injury is not reasonably foreseeable.
From the standpoint of ethical, an employer should pay compensation to his/her employees if the employees are having injury at the workplace when working.
Colorado compensation worker:
legal relationship between employer and employee and agreement (contract) employment determines whether a party should be responsible foe a workplace of accident"
Turner construction = responsible for economic losses of $28,000 for Elliot.
B&C Steel = responsible for non-economic injuries of $1,200,000 and permanent impairment of $1,200,000 for Elliot.
Who should pay for Elliot's injuries?
Should not pay any cost of injuries
Economic losses of $28,000
Non-economic injuries = $1,200,000
Permanent Impairment = $1,200,000
NUR AMALINA BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN 230099
VAASHINI A/P RAMAN @ MAGANDARAN 230128
CHIN CIAN LIN 237880
TEOH AI YUN 240168
Elliot sued Turner Construction and B&C Steel economic losses of $28,000 (medical cost, wages), non-economic injuries of $1,200,000 permanent impairment of $1,200,000.
Turner Construction appealed:
Turner was Elliot's temporary employer and workers' compensation law required employers to pay only the economic loses
Why Turner Construction
is immune suit?
In terms of languages, Mabey leased the bridge to Turner Construction, Mabey was a lessor (not a lessee) with respect to the component parts of the bridge
when applied to the employment relationship, Mabey also a subcontractor to the extent it assisted Turner Construction/B&C Steel (through Elliot) in constructing and launching the bridge.
Hence Turner is a statutory employer and thus required to pay only the economic loses which is $28,000
Employee's (Elliot) services are necessary and routine to the employer's (Turner Construction/B&C Steel) regular business.
Absent Elliot's expertise and assistance, Turner Construction would have had to hire its own employee to study the bridge's design, assembly, advise oversee its construction and launch
For Example, in this Elliot and B&C Steel case, the company B&C Steel did not apply the caring of their employee-Elliot even he is a temporary worker.
Planning poor B&C Steel this resulted in some problems in moving the bridge closer to the water including the failure to note the location of fences, concrete barriers and a set of trolley tracks in the path of the bridge.
B&C Steel did not set off the power line before the bridge is moved below.
Lawsuit allows employees to demand greater compensation including the amount of lost wages and pain and suffering.
There is a possibility where Elliot can sue his company name B&C Steel otherwise, but compensation of employees considered the exclusive remedy for injuries at work in most states. This is why failure to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage can cause a steep restriction.
Caring is the ethical principal that will be used in ethical judgment on this case
As an employer, he or she have a duty care to their employees as he or she have dependent relationship with his or her employees.
But, in this case, Turner Construction Company and B&C Steel do not act as a good and responsible employers. They are violated the Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) law 1984 which is a law requires employers to provide a high standard of safe working environment for employees to ensure employees are not injured or harmed because of their work.