Workmen Compensation Act 1897: Case Study

Added on - 16 Sep 2019

  • Dissertation

    type

  • 6

    pages

  • 1108

    words

  • 174

    views

  • 0

    downloads

Showing pages 1 to 3 of 6 pages
Case Study
Case NameChristopher John CORR, Appellant, v.WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC. No. 50978–6.Factual backgroundIn this case, Corr is an employee who got injured while cleaning the bulk bin compressor thenafter the injury, he subsequently files for and receives compensation benefits. After that Corrinitiated products liability action against Willamette which is a parent company of western Kraftpaper group. The Willamette had absorbed Corco Inc. and he subsequently absorbed plant andmachinery which includes two bulk bin compressor units. The company starts using its bulk bincompressor without modification due to which Corr got injured. The employee gets injured bythe defective equipment design which is built by the corporate predecessor of the employee. Theemployee also gets alleged that the employer is failed to provide safe and healthy workingenvironment. The summary of judgment was in favour of Willamette by the trial court then Corrdirectly appealed to the court. The Corr has proved Willamette as the third party on the basis ofdual capacity and dual persona (Thorpe et al., 2013).According to the workmen compensationact if the third person not in the same employ as the injured person causes the injury then theinjured employee may seek damages from the third person. But the court has rejected the facts.General LawThe workmen compensation act 1897 is discussed in the paper, and it is the act of parliament ofthe United Kingdom (Pandey et al., 2015). The act states that the employee has the right to getcompensation for the personal injury occurs at the workplace. The employee has the right to sue
the employer by giving the proofs. The act was replaced by the workmen compensation act 1906which is an extended scheme. The workmen compensation act 1906 has fixed the amount ofcompensation which is recovered by an employee from the employer (Barrett et al., 2016). Theexceptions to the law include non-manual workers who are employed on annual pay of morethan£250, family workers, and casual workers and out workers. The objective of the act is toprovide payment of compensation to the worker for injury occurred at the workplace. A numberof compensations includes permanent total disablement, temporary disablement, death, andpermanent partial disablement. If the employer is unable to settle the claim, then the workmenshould file the application in order to recover the claim. The court has the power to charge theinterest on the amount of cost, penalty, and compensation.Analysis of issueIssue:Did the Supreme Court err in granting Corr motion for summary judgment when Corr sued forproduct liability action against the parent company due to injury at workplace from defected bulkbin compressor?The main issue is that the defective plant equipment is given by Willamette to its subsidiarycompany without suspecting it before handling it to the workmen for use due to which theemployee got injured from the bulk bin compressor at workplace.Analysis:In this case, the dual persona doctrine is not considering the majority opinion at eight is notaddressed by the court. The stream of commerce is not included in the opinions, and the
desklib-logo
You’re reading a preview
card-image

To View Complete Document

Become a Desklib Library Member.
Subscribe to our plans

Unlock This Document