Based on the comments, only “Bob” under-
stands what’s going on here. W.C. laws All for 100 years, have stated that W.C. is the sole and exclusive source of benefits for injured employees – that’s why we pay all of the claims even though MOST involve negligence on the part of the employee. Our “astute” judge apparently doesn’t understand this provision of the law, or the 100 years of history in NJ and throughout the U.S. –
but maybe asking for judges to understand
this is too much to ask. The W.C. law and other state and federal laws penalize the employers who do not use appropriate safety devices or procedures.
so, if he was ordered into the trench, why knowing that there was a safety issue, did he enter anyways? was he threatened? NO! he entered as asked to and proceeded without thinking about any safety. so both are actually responsible, not the company themselves. it’s ridiculous that the individual did not take any responsiblity of his actions for his own safety.
OSHA Act (PL 91-956) Section 5 A 1 General Duty Clause – Employer responsibility to maintain a workplace free of recognized hazards. Regardless of the worker actions, the employer violated federal law.
so, if they told you to jump off a bridge w/o a safety harness (bungee cord or big safety net) would you? don’t think so, there has to be some common sense. now, if he had taken the proper safety precautions and then it failed, then i can see it being the employer’s responsibility.
Hypothetically jumping off a bridge and actually doing one’s job are two different things. The laborer was not in charge of safety and may not have been in the know on that end of the project as it was not his responsibility. The end result proves the project was unsafe. This should be a wakeup call to construction firms shortcutting on safety. Any more suits like this and NJ will end of like NY.
Should the worker know what ALL the proper safety precautions are? In a time when jobs are scarce and there is always someone waiting in the wings for the right opportunity, sometimes when the boss says jump, you say how high!
they should after all it is responsibility of each individual. has anyone worked with hazmat? if so, you know according to OSHA, you are supposed to know where those lovely books are on the hazmat, hazmat response and actions related. if someone saw you doing something unsafe, would you not want that person to catch you prior to? like i said, he’s partially responsible because he should have known and according the osha report, he did know, but did not take any action.
Wudchuck, ordinarily I would agree with you. However, Hank has a point. When you have to pay the bills and feed the family, you do what you are told to do. I know many people that their supervisors have knowingly put them in danger. you can do is do your job and hope for the best and look for another one while you are still employed.
Am I missing the point of work comp? I thought it was to render the point of liability moot by automatically compensating workers for any injury on the job. This ruling appears to undermine the purpose of workers comp. If the worker had willfully violated an OSHA regulation and had gotten injured as a result of his own negligent actions I wonder if this judge would have denied work comp benefits? It would appear the cost of doing business in New Jersey just got more expensive.
You’ve got it exactly right, wudchuck – that’s exactly what the W.C. law provides – any and all reasonable and necessary medical expenses, and 75% of lost income (tax-free). To allow, on top of that, negligence lawsuit expenses, “pain & suffering” damages, will grossly inflate the injured employees’ benefits – and be a boon to lawyers. We’ll all pay the price for this in increased premiums, and the costs of goods and services – just so some W.C. lawyer-specialists can get richer. Judges should be required to study the history of the laws they pass judgment on, and have concern for the results of their decisions. The employer WILL BE penalized, and pay fines, for the workplace violations.
I believe that some states, if not all, have exceptions in their Workers Comp laws that allow employees to sue for gross negligence and/or intentional infliction of harm. However if the employee sues under either of these, then the employer regains all the normal defenses, including contributory negligence on the part of the employee, which were taken away in the Workers Comp law.
that is what i thought… so that is what is confusing as to why they are fundling around with medical bills and loss of income because of this. w.c. should be covering all this. i know when i got hurt on the truck, i was out for 2 weeks and it paid for my medical and my income (think it was 80%) for the time out. that is what is amazing they are allowed to sue the employer… does not make any sense…
Based on the comments, only “Bob” under-
stands what’s going on here. W.C. laws All for 100 years, have stated that W.C. is the sole and exclusive source of benefits for injured employees – that’s why we pay all of the claims even though MOST involve negligence on the part of the employee. Our “astute” judge apparently doesn’t understand this provision of the law, or the 100 years of history in NJ and throughout the U.S. –
but maybe asking for judges to understand
this is too much to ask. The W.C. law and other state and federal laws penalize the employers who do not use appropriate safety devices or procedures.
so, if he was ordered into the trench, why knowing that there was a safety issue, did he enter anyways? was he threatened? NO! he entered as asked to and proceeded without thinking about any safety. so both are actually responsible, not the company themselves. it’s ridiculous that the individual did not take any responsiblity of his actions for his own safety.
OSHA Act (PL 91-956) Section 5 A 1 General Duty Clause – Employer responsibility to maintain a workplace free of recognized hazards. Regardless of the worker actions, the employer violated federal law.
so, if they told you to jump off a bridge w/o a safety harness (bungee cord or big safety net) would you? don’t think so, there has to be some common sense. now, if he had taken the proper safety precautions and then it failed, then i can see it being the employer’s responsibility.
Hypothetically jumping off a bridge and actually doing one’s job are two different things. The laborer was not in charge of safety and may not have been in the know on that end of the project as it was not his responsibility. The end result proves the project was unsafe. This should be a wakeup call to construction firms shortcutting on safety. Any more suits like this and NJ will end of like NY.
Should the worker know what ALL the proper safety precautions are? In a time when jobs are scarce and there is always someone waiting in the wings for the right opportunity, sometimes when the boss says jump, you say how high!
they should after all it is responsibility of each individual. has anyone worked with hazmat? if so, you know according to OSHA, you are supposed to know where those lovely books are on the hazmat, hazmat response and actions related. if someone saw you doing something unsafe, would you not want that person to catch you prior to? like i said, he’s partially responsible because he should have known and according the osha report, he did know, but did not take any action.
Wudchuck, ordinarily I would agree with you. However, Hank has a point. When you have to pay the bills and feed the family, you do what you are told to do. I know many people that their supervisors have knowingly put them in danger. you can do is do your job and hope for the best and look for another one while you are still employed.
Am I missing the point of work comp? I thought it was to render the point of liability moot by automatically compensating workers for any injury on the job. This ruling appears to undermine the purpose of workers comp. If the worker had willfully violated an OSHA regulation and had gotten injured as a result of his own negligent actions I wonder if this judge would have denied work comp benefits? It would appear the cost of doing business in New Jersey just got more expensive.
You’ve got it exactly right, wudchuck – that’s exactly what the W.C. law provides – any and all reasonable and necessary medical expenses, and 75% of lost income (tax-free). To allow, on top of that, negligence lawsuit expenses, “pain & suffering” damages, will grossly inflate the injured employees’ benefits – and be a boon to lawyers. We’ll all pay the price for this in increased premiums, and the costs of goods and services – just so some W.C. lawyer-specialists can get richer. Judges should be required to study the history of the laws they pass judgment on, and have concern for the results of their decisions. The employer WILL BE penalized, and pay fines, for the workplace violations.
WELCOME TO NEW YORK!!
I believe that some states, if not all, have exceptions in their Workers Comp laws that allow employees to sue for gross negligence and/or intentional infliction of harm. However if the employee sues under either of these, then the employer regains all the normal defenses, including contributory negligence on the part of the employee, which were taken away in the Workers Comp law.
that is what i thought… so that is what is confusing as to why they are fundling around with medical bills and loss of income because of this. w.c. should be covering all this. i know when i got hurt on the truck, i was out for 2 weeks and it paid for my medical and my income (think it was 80%) for the time out. that is what is amazing they are allowed to sue the employer… does not make any sense…