Essay Available:
Pages:
2 pages/≈550 words
Sources:
6
Style:
Harvard
Subject:
Business & Marketing
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.K.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 8.64
Topic:
Legal Rights and Responsibilities: The Case of Julie
Essay Instructions:
You should follow this case to answer the question and make a summary report.
Julie is employed at a local School. Julie has a physical disability – she suffers from chronic rheumatoid arthritis in one of her arms. When un-loading stationery and storing it in the stationery cupboard she has a twinge in her arthritic arm – the cupboard fell on top of her as she was loading it and she is injured as a result of this accident.
When sued for damages the School pleads:
a) Julie was negligent in not waiting for an inspection or additional help by a another person to complete the piece of work safely
b) Julie willingly accepted what she knew, would be a difficult task based on her disability, and;
c) Julie could have prevented the shelving to fall had she been more careful.
1) What laws/Acts may have been broken by the School.
2) Discuss the legal points in detail and advise all parties as to their rights and responsibilities.
Essay Sample Content Preview:
Legal Rights and Responsibilities: The Case of Julie
Determining Negligence
In the case of Julie, we must determine the issue of negligence on the particular instance and the surrounding circumstances of the case. It is the responsibility of the employer upon hiring Julie to have full knowledge of her disabilities and to give her a job that is appropriate given her health condition. In Roe vs. Minister of Health (2 AER 131, 1954), we can see that knowledge of certain facts should have led the employer to foresee possible loss damage and should therefore anticipated the liability. And therefore the school should not have given her work that might lead to the accident that Julie suffered.
Taking Necessary Precautions and knowledge of Risks
Julie`s employer should have taken the necessary precautions that could have prevented the accident from happening. We can find a basis for this in the case of HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haley_v_London_Electricity_Board&action=edit&redlink=1" \o "Haley v London Electricity Board (page does not exist)"Haley v London Electricity Board [1964] 3 All ER 185, where the responsibility of taking the important precautions rests on the shoulders of the employer. The employer, upon hiring Julie has full knowledge that risks are involved. Knowing fully well of Julie`s weakness, they should not have given her a task that might further increase the risks of accidents occurring. While it is true that indeed, Julie willingly accepted her responsibilities in the job, we cannot not remove the guilt altogether from the employer who designated the job. In Miller vs. Jackson ([1977] QB 966, [1977] 3 WLR 20, [1977] 3 All ER 338, a probability where an accident will happen is high, thus the defendant is not altogether excused from accountability as the employer is the one who took the risk in assigning such a job to Julie.
Basis in Law
Tort and statutory law provides a clear basis for the liability of the employer where it is clear that the employer missed out on certain duties and obligations to Julie that could have preve...
Determining Negligence
In the case of Julie, we must determine the issue of negligence on the particular instance and the surrounding circumstances of the case. It is the responsibility of the employer upon hiring Julie to have full knowledge of her disabilities and to give her a job that is appropriate given her health condition. In Roe vs. Minister of Health (2 AER 131, 1954), we can see that knowledge of certain facts should have led the employer to foresee possible loss damage and should therefore anticipated the liability. And therefore the school should not have given her work that might lead to the accident that Julie suffered.
Taking Necessary Precautions and knowledge of Risks
Julie`s employer should have taken the necessary precautions that could have prevented the accident from happening. We can find a basis for this in the case of HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haley_v_London_Electricity_Board&action=edit&redlink=1" \o "Haley v London Electricity Board (page does not exist)"Haley v London Electricity Board [1964] 3 All ER 185, where the responsibility of taking the important precautions rests on the shoulders of the employer. The employer, upon hiring Julie has full knowledge that risks are involved. Knowing fully well of Julie`s weakness, they should not have given her a task that might further increase the risks of accidents occurring. While it is true that indeed, Julie willingly accepted her responsibilities in the job, we cannot not remove the guilt altogether from the employer who designated the job. In Miller vs. Jackson ([1977] QB 966, [1977] 3 WLR 20, [1977] 3 All ER 338, a probability where an accident will happen is high, thus the defendant is not altogether excused from accountability as the employer is the one who took the risk in assigning such a job to Julie.
Basis in Law
Tort and statutory law provides a clear basis for the liability of the employer where it is clear that the employer missed out on certain duties and obligations to Julie that could have preve...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now: