Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Read the following and answer the 3 questions.
The stakes were high for Gene Elliot, whose on-the-job
injuries were estimated to be serious enough to merit at
least a $2.4 million settlement. But who should pay for his
injuries: Turner Construction or B&C Steel? Or should
Elliot be forced to pay for at least part of his injuries because
of his own carelessness?
Gene Elliot worked for Mabey Bridge and Shore, a
small business that rented temporary steel pedestrian foot
bridges to other companies. The temporary bridges had to
be put together by the renter, and Elliot’s job was to go to
the site where the steel bridge was going to be installed,
show the renter how to bolt the bridge sections together
and how to install the bridge over a river or waterway, and
inspect the bridge to make sure it was done properly and
according to Mabey Bridge’s high standards. Elliot was a
devoted hard worker who strove to do everything possible
to ensure that a bridge installation was successful and according
to Mabey Bridge’s standards.
Turner Construction was a general contractor hired to
build Invesco Field at the Mile High Stadium in Denver, Colorado.
Part of the job involved installing a temporary pedestrian
bridge over the Platte River near the stadium. Turner
Construction subcontracted (hired) B&C Steel to build and
install the bridge, which Turner Construction would pay
for. B&C Steel was a small company that specialized in putting
together and installing steel structures like those Mabey
Bridge rented out. B&C Steel would pick up the bridge, put
it together, and install it for Turner Construction.
Turner Construction rented the long steel bridge
from Mabey Bridge. Mabey Bridge agreed that the rental
included the services of Gene Elliot, who would be loaned
to Turner Construction to instruct and inspect the bridge
assembly and installation. B&C Steel’s workers picked up
the bridge sections from Mabey Bridge’s warehouse and
drove them to the river, but did not unload the bridge sections
where they had to be assembled. B&C Steel then had
to move the sections to the correct site, but did not plan
for the fence, guardrails, and trolley tracks that were in
the way and later had to work around these obstructions.
B&C Steel began bolting the bridge sections together.
When Elliot inspected the job, he found the bridge had
been bolted together upside down. Elliot made B&C Steel
do the job over, while he climbed up and down and over
the bridge, continuously checking and making sure that all
the bolts were tight and all the pieces were in the right
place so that the installation would be a success. When
the bridge was finished, B&C Steel workers used a truck
to move the long steel structure to the edge of the river.
Unfortunately, B&C Steel had not adequately checked the
route and their truck hit a low-hanging power line, which
sparked and started a fire. The fire department arrived and
put out the fire. Afterwards, the installation job continued.
Explore the Concept on
mythinkinglab.com
ETHICS AND THE EMPLOYEE 457
B&C Steel workers set up a crane on the other side of
the river near a retaining wall, and a strong nylon strap was
strung from the crane, over the water, and tied to one end
of the bridge, which was set on rollers. The B&C Steel
crane would lift and pull the bridge over the river to its
side, while workers on the other side of the river pushed
on their end of the bridge. The work began, and as the
pulling crane held the bridge suspended in the air about
a quarter of the way over the river, Elliot noticed that
the retaining wall which was supporting the crane on the
other side of the river was beginning to collapse, causing
the crane to begin to tip sideways. The B&C Steel crane
operator on the other side began to untie the strap holding
the bridge. Concerned that once the strap was cut the
bridge would fall into the river and the installation would
end in failure, Elliot ran up on the bridge and gave the
standard emergency OSHA all-stop signal that all construction
workers know means not to move anything. But
the bridge, still attached to the crane, somehow moved,
and Elliot fell, sustaining numerous pelvic injuries and a
severed urethra (the tube that carries urine). The cause of
the movement was never established.
Elliot sued Turner Construction and B&C Steel for
negligence resulting in economic losses of $28,000, noneconomic
injuries of $1,200,000, and permanent impairment
of $1,200,000. These figures were established by a
qualified expert in the field of worker injuries and were not
seriously contested.
Turner Construction, however, denied its responsibility.
It claimed that Turner was Elliot’s temporary employer
and workers’ compensation law required employers
to pay only the economic losses, here only $28,000, suffered
by their employees. Turner Construction pointed to
the law, which stated: “Any company leasing or contracting
out any part of the work to any lessee or subcontractor,
shall be construed to be an employer and shall be liable
to pay [only] compensation for injury resulting therefrom
to said lessees and subcontractors and their employees.”
Turner Construction claimed that Mabey Bridge was
a subcontractor to Turner to the extent that it provided
the services of Elliot to Turner, so Turner should be construed
to be Elliot’s temporary employer. Moreover, Colorado’s
workers’ compensation law, which was designed
to ensure that employers always paid for worker injuries
“grants an injured employee compensation from the employer
without regard to negligence and, in return, the
responsible employer is granted immunity from common
law negligence liability.”
B&C Steel claimed that it, too, was not responsible,
because according to the law a company is not responsible
for negligence when an injury is not “reasonably foreseeable”
to the company. B&C Steel contended that a reasonable
person could not have anticipated that placing the
crane near to the retaining wall and subsequently attempting
to remove the nylon strap holding up the bridge might
end by prompting someone to get on the bridge in an attempt
to save it from falling into the river. On the other
hand, B&C Steel claimed, since “Elliot chose to remove
himself from a secure and safe position and placed himself
in one that he understood was potentially unsafe,” Elliot
was himself responsible for his injuries.
Elliot claimed that he was not really Turner Construction’s
employee, since he was working for Mabey
Bridge. He also argued that B&C Steel had shown
a pattern of negligence from the time that the bridge
was received until the time that it was installed. B&C
Steel and its employees, he said, were unprepared for
the project and negligently failed to adequately plan
for it, as shown by the sequence of events leading up
to his injury. B&C Steel, therefore, did not exercise the
degree of care that a reasonably careful person should
have exercised in similar circumstances and so was liable
to him for his injuries. He himself was not responsible,
Elliot said, because a good, devoted employee would try
his best to ensure that the bridge installation did not
end in failure, and he would have been perfectly safe if
the standard OSHA all-stop signal had been followed
by B&C Steel employees, as he had a right to expect it
to be.
Questions
1. In your judgment, and from an ethical point of view,
should Turner Construction and/or B&C Steel pay
for all or part of the $2,428,000 (if part, indicate which
part)? Explain your view.
2. In your judgement, and from an ethical point of view,
should Elliot be held wholly or partially responsible
for his injuries and left to shoulder all or part of the
$2,428,000 cost of his injuries (if part, indicate which
part)? Explain.
3. In your judgement, is the Colorado worker’s compensation
law to which Turner Construction appealed
fair? Explain your view.