The plaintiff sustained life-changing and debilitating injuries in the form of skin cancer that could have also proven fatal had it not been diagnosed in time to treat. There is still no guarantee that the cancer will not recur and the plaintiff will now have to endure that grave uncertainty for the rest of his life.
The employer benefited tremendously from the labor of this employee and it had an affirmative duty to provide the necessary information and forms of protection against solar radiation that could have easily prevented these harms. In light of the tremendous danger and cost of treating skin cancer in comparison to the relative small cost of providing simple precautions and protocols to protect it employees, the employer had a duty to protect the health and welfare of its employees.
Argument against Employer Liability
The employee was never exposed to any hidden or unknown risks of any kind. Every adult is fully aware of the risk of overexposure to the sun and every person has a personal obligation to take reasonable precautions to protect himself from obvious dangers encountered as often on private life as on the job. In this case, the employee failed to take any of the same reasonable precautions of protective clothing and sunscreen .that many of his coworkers use routinely. The plaintiff's argument is no stronger than a winter climate worker who neglects to wear gloves and then seeks compensation from his employer for frostbitten fingers. The employer never interfered with any choices of employees to take reasonable precautions and reasonably assumed that all adults were aware of the need to take reasonable precautions against obvious hazards such as long-term exposure to the sun.
Halbert, T. And Ingulli, E. (2008). Law & Ethics in the Business Environment. Cincinnati:…
Sources Used in Document:
Halbert, T. And Ingulli, E. (2008). Law & Ethics in the Business Environment. Cincinnati: