Slip and Fall and Worker’s Compensation Insurance
If a slip and fall happens at work, employees cannot pursue a slip and fall lawsuit. Instead, they must make a worker’s compensation claim. State worker’s compensation rules determine the types of damages an injured worker can recover payment for. There is typically no need to prove negligence in worker’s comp cases as employers are almost always liable for covering losses from work-related injuries regardless of fault.
Slip and Fall in Stores or Companies
Office buildings, stores, hospitals and companies invite people onto their property in order to do business with them. As a result, in some states they have a duty to make the premises safe for their patrons. They must take steps to identify and fix hazards or they can be found negligent for failure to do so. This can mean a victim is able to successfully file a slip and fall lawsuit based on the store owner’s or store employee’s negligence.
What Is a Duty of Care?
In general, a duty of care is a legal obligation one person owes to another to exercise reasonable caution when doing something that could foreseeably cause harm. The definition may seem simple enough, but in a negligence case, both “reasonable” and “foreseeable” can be important points of disagreement.
There are many situations in which people have a duty of care. A doctor has a duty of care to meet the standard of care required by the patient’s condition. An accountant has a duty of care to prepare tax returns accurately. A store owner has a duty of care to clear ice off their sidewalk so patrons do not fall.
A duty of care only exists when there is a relationship that warrants it. Your doctor has no duty of care to help you manage your finances. Your accountant has no duty of care to ensure you get treatment for your chronic illness.
Relationship Between the Parties
A duty of care can arise because of a situation or because of a contract or statute. In general there are four situations where a duty of care exists:
The defendant was involved in creating the risk which caused harm to the plaintiff. Example: A worker left a manhole cover off with no sign, causing the plaintiff to fall in the hole.
The defendant volunteered to protect the plaintiff from harm. Example: A drunk volunteer firefighter drops the person they are carrying out of a burning building.
The defendant knew or should have known that their actions would result in harm to the plaintiff. Example: The defendant drove without their lights on so a pedestrian did not see them and was hit.
The plaintiff and defendant have a business relationship, such as innkeeper and guest, or they have a voluntary relationship, such as a person who invites the public onto their property.
Daubert Standard
Under Daubert, the Court considers four factors to when determining the admissibility of expert testimony:
whether the theory can and has been tested;
whether it has been subject to peer review;
the known or expected rate of error; and
whether the theory or methodology employed is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.
Under Daubert’s progeny, scientific expert testimony is admissible when the testimony meets the following three-part test:
the proffered witness must be an expert. i.e., the witness must be qualified;
the expert must testify about matters requiring scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge; and
the expert’s testimony must assist the trier of fact.
OSHA General Duty Clause 5(a)(1)
What is an employer's main responsibility under the OSHA General Duty Clause?
Employers have the responsibility to provide a safe and healthful workplace that is free from serious recognized hazards. This is commonly known as the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act. OSHA standards are rules that describe the methods that employers must use to protect their employees from hazards.
What are the 4 elements required to prove a violation of OSHA's General Duty Clause?
The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed
The hazard was recognized
The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm
There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.
If You have a Floor, You Need to Know More
MAKE WALKWAY SAFETY MAINSTREAM
March 7, 2023
A national food producer is facing $222,779 in proposed fines after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration said a failure in workplace safety procedures led to a seasonal worker’s partial finger amputation at a Wisconsin cannery.
OSHA on Tuesday announced citations against Walnut Creek, California-based Del Monte Foods Inc. for two repeated and six serious safety violations of machine safety and fall protection standards.
The citations stem from an incident at the company’s Plover, Wisconsin, cannery in which a 20-year-old worker suffered a partial finger amputation after attempting to unjam an unguarded palletizer machine.
An exact date of the injury was not provided by OSHA.
OSHA said the company’s lack of machine guarding and safety procedures exposed employees to machine hazards.
Inspectors said workers were not properly trained to recognize or safely control hazardous energy sources during the unjamming process.
OSHA also accused the company of failing to install handrails and anti-slip coatings that help to prevent workers from falling on walkways, ladderways and stairs.
Del Monte Foods, one of the country’s largest food retailers, has 15 days to contest the citations.
source: www.businessinsurance.com
