7 ms·
If you are killed or injured on the job then isn't the employer liable? Maybe I'm naive but why is OSHA necessary at that point? Are they not liable enough (is
by 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
If you are killed or injured on the job then isn't the employer liable? Maybe I'm naive but why is OSHA necessary at that point? Are they not liable enough (is the payout for wrongful death too low)?
- cjalmeida 2y agoIf a 787 crashes and kill all passengers due to improper maintenance, the airline is liable. Does that make FAA regulations on maintenance unnecessary? Would you put your family in such aircraft?
- oivey 2y agoBefore OSHA, that didn’t work, so why do you think it will work now?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoI don't know if it will work now, I'm wondering out loud why our court system isn't enough.
- dboreham 2y agoBecause latency.
- Buttons840 2y agoDoesn't this assume courts are honest and neutral brokers of justice, and cannot be influenced by power imbalances, and that everyone has quick and equal access to the courts for redress? Sometimes it takes a powerful organization to get redress from another powerful organization.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoI'd imagine that wrongful death pays out so much money that lawyers will throw themselves at you.
- hedora 2y agoIf it is a sufficiently clear-cut case, they might. However, no-win no-pay lawyers (the only ones accessible to most construction workers' families) rarely act in their clients' financial interest. Typical tactics involve settling for whatever maximizes the $/hour the lawyer earns (e.g., they might take a low-ball settlement the first week instead of spending months on discovery to get to trial), and having fine print in the contract saying you have to pay for expenses regardless of the case outcome (and then racking up all sorts of expenses on your behalf, and perhaps settling for a value so low your cut doesn't cover the bills).
- andrepd 2y agoPoe's law
- rqtwteye 2y agoYou will have trouble proving that the employer did something that caused the death. And they have usually deeper pockets so they can drag out court proceedings for a very long time.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoI didn't think they'd have to do something to cause it- only allow it to happen under their watch.
- SoftTalker 2y agoWithout some standard of what is "safe" each case would be an argument over the relative safety and risks in the particular situation, the knowledge and expertise of the people involved, etc. With OSHA regulations there is much less wiggle room. "They weren't using trench boxes, as required..." leaves much less room for debate.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoDoes this shield from liability in some instances? Say they were using trench boxes and were still killed- is the company still liable?
- SoftTalker 2y agoWell you'd have to ask a lawyer but I think that if they were following regulations and otherwise using "reasonable and customary" safety precautions then yes. Or at least changes who is liable. E.g. if the trench box was properly maintained, properly placed, and failed, then you'd be looking at the trench box manufacturer, not so much the contractor who was using it.
- dboreham 2y agoYou get to make that argument in court.
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoBefore fire safety laws, fire escape ladders were made out of wood. If you lost a loved one in the fire, the company would say this was standard industry practice, and normal. You would get no compensation.
- recursivecaveat 2y agoSmall players can avoid a lot of the downside risk associated with legal liability. They just go bankrupt or near enough and refuse to pay until they die. There's an example in the article. Much easier to extract a smaller fine from an operating business than millions from someone whose only asset is a social security card. This is probably part of the reason bigger firms are often more compliant, also that executives are more exposed to personal liability as the number of workers grows, all else equal.