Ask a question to Desklib · AI bot
Workmen Compensation Act 1897: Case Study
Added on -2019-09-16
| 6 pages
| 1108 words
| 1097 views
Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
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 then after the injury, he subsequently files for and receives compensation benefits. After that Corr initiated products liability action against Willamette which is a parent company of western Kraft paper group. The Willamette had absorbed Corco Inc. and he subsequently absorbed plant and machinery which includes two bulk bin compressor units. The company starts using its bulk bin compressor without modification due to which Corr got injured. The employee gets injured by the defective equipment design which is built by the corporate predecessor of the employee. The employee also gets alleged that the employer is failed to provide safe and healthy working environment. The summary of judgment was in favour of Willamette by the trial court then Corr directly appealed to the court. The Corr has proved Willamette as the third party on the basis of dual capacity and dual persona (Thorpe et al., 2013).According to the workmen compensation act if the third person not in the same employ as the injured person causes the injury then the injured 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 of the United Kingdom (Pandey et al., 2015). The act states that the employee has the right to get compensation 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 1906 which is an extended scheme. The workmen compensation act 1906 has fixed the amount of compensation which is recovered by an employee from the employer (Barrett et al., 2016). The exceptions to the law include non-manual workers who are employed on annual pay of more than £250, family workers, and casual workers and out workers. The objective of the act is to provide payment of compensation to the worker for injury occurred at the workplace. A number of compensations includes permanent total disablement, temporary disablement, death, and permanent partial disablement. If the employer is unable to settle the claim, then the workmen should file the application in order to recover the claim. The court has the power to charge the interest 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 for product 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 subsidiary company without suspecting it before handling it to the workmen for use due to which the employee 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 not addressed by the court. The stream of commerce is not included in the opinions, and the
Found this document preview useful?
You are reading a preview
Upload your documents to download
or
Become a Desklib member to get accesss
Paid Plans
Free Plan
Single Unlock
Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan