Physiology -- Legal Arguments Generally,

Physiology -- Legal Arguments

Generally, employers are liable for injuries or harm sustained by their employees where those injuries or harms are the proximate result of the negligence or failure to protect employees from reasonably foreseeable risks to which they are exposed in their employment (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). However, where the injuries or harm suffered by the employees are attributable to hazards that are so obvious to the ordinary reasonable person or where the means of protection against those risks are so obvious and available to employees, there will not likely be any finding of liability on the part of the employer (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008).

In this case, the claims of damages by the employee are attributable to very obvious risks of sun exposure. Those risks are completely within the awareness and of ordinary people ability to protect themselves from by the simple measure of wearing appropriate clothing and using sunscreen. Unless the employer prevented the employee from taking reasonable precautions against sun exposure, it is difficult to imagine any court finding that the employer is liable for the consequences of sun damage. If it were up to me as the attorney, I would be much more interested in representing the employer because the prospect of success would appear to me much better than the chances of success representing the employee. Nevertheless, the following would be my arguments on behalf of each:

Argument for Employer Liability

The plaintiff in this case worked in a hazardous environment on behalf of his employer and pursuant to the employer's instructions and rules pertaining to every element of the workplace. The serious health and medical risks associated with long-term unprotected exposure to solar radiation are so well-known that it is impossible for the employer to claim that it was unaware of the risks to its employees working long hours in the field. 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