3 ms·

Ok for the OSHA fine, but what about civil and criminal liabilities. I guess the OSHA thing is just a fine for not complying with some safety regulations, not

by GuB-42 3y ago

Ok for the OSHA fine, but what about civil and criminal liabilities. I guess the OSHA thing is just a fine for not complying with some safety regulations, not for causing the death of someone. For the latter, someone may sue for criminal negligence, if justified.

EA-3167 3y ago
Exactly, I think people often misunderstand the role of OSHA and why extremely burdensome fines (right of the bat at least) would inhibit their mission. For the rest, as you say, the courts are there to pick up the slack. It's not as though an OSHA fine removes a companies liability!
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  What's the argument for outsourcing workplace safety to individual lawyers? Bumping the max fine up by 10x or 20x would still leave room for excess liability while simultaneously guaranteeing actual repercussions for negligent companies. In the current setup, if the estate decides not to pursue a lawsuit since it's a horrible process that will take several years, the company basically gets off free?
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    > What's the argument for outsourcing workplace safety to individual lawyers? That isn't my argument, so I wouldn't make it. OSHA oversees that, and fines are one of its tools. That's a separate issue from compensating people who are harmed as the result of workplace safety violations. You wouldn't say that the FAA or NHTSA IS "outsourcing safety" just because they aren't the ones handing out civil penalties, right?
Clubber 3y ago
In the US, workman's comp replaces most civil liability claims. In other words, because workman's comp exists, you can't directly sue your employer; it's part of the law. https://lawkirkpatrick.com/the-difference-between-civil-cases-and-workers-compensation-cases/ https://lawkirkpatrick.com/the-difference-between-civil-case... A person is not allowed to sue their employer directly in a civil case. Other times we might see cases where there are both the workers compensation case and a civil case at play. This means that somebody was hurt at work but there was also a third party – someone other than the employer that is believed to be responsible for the accident. Just recently an ironworker came into the office having fallen at work well as it turns out the step that he fell on was negligently or carelessly built by another contractor who was on the same job. This person has a workers compensation case against his employer and will likely file a civil lawsuit against the other contractor who created this danger through their negligence.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  This post starts by saying “most” civil liability claims are impossible where workman’s compensation exists, which is true, but then the rest of the post seems to suggest it’s a hard and fast rule. It is not. If you are injured at work, seek advice from a professional. One exception: willful misconduct.

by GuB-42 3y ago

EA-3167 3y ago

Exactly, I think people often misunderstand the role of OSHA and why extremely burdensome fines (right of the bat at least) would inhibit their mission. For the rest, as you say, the courts are there to pick up the slack. It's not as though an OSHA fine removes a companies liability!

mikeyouse 3y ago
What's the argument for outsourcing workplace safety to individual lawyers? Bumping the max fine up by 10x or 20x would still leave room for excess liability while simultaneously guaranteeing actual repercussions for negligent companies. In the current setup, if the estate decides not to pursue a lawsuit since it's a horrible process that will take several years, the company basically gets off free?
- EA-3167 3y ago
  > What's the argument for outsourcing workplace safety to individual lawyers? That isn't my argument, so I wouldn't make it. OSHA oversees that, and fines are one of its tools. That's a separate issue from compensating people who are harmed as the result of workplace safety violations. You wouldn't say that the FAA or NHTSA IS "outsourcing safety" just because they aren't the ones handing out civil penalties, right?

Clubber 3y ago

In the US, workman's comp replaces most civil liability claims. In other words, because workman's comp exists, you can't directly sue your employer; it's part of the law. https://lawkirkpatrick.com/the-difference-between-civil-cases-and-workers-compensation-cases/ https://lawkirkpatrick.com/the-difference-between-civil-case... A person is not allowed to sue their employer directly in a civil case. Other times we might see cases where there are both the workers compensation case and a civil case at play. This means that somebody was hurt at work but there was also a third party – someone other than the employer that is believed to be responsible for the accident. Just recently an ironworker came into the office having fallen at work well as it turns out the step that he fell on was negligently or carelessly built by another contractor who was on the same job. This person has a workers compensation case against his employer and will likely file a civil lawsuit against the other contractor who created this danger through their negligence.

singleshot_ 3y ago
This post starts by saying “most” civil liability claims are impossible where workman’s compensation exists, which is true, but then the rest of the post seems to suggest it’s a hard and fast rule. It is not. If you are injured at work, seek advice from a professional. One exception: willful misconduct.