Hannon’s injury was an accident because she did not expect to be stabbed at work.
Hannon’s accident was an accident because the event caused structural and mechanical changes to her body. In Virginia, a workplace accident occurs when: (1) an injury occurs by a sudden precipitating event, resulting in mechanical or structural changes to the human body; and (2) the event was unusual or unexpected. Cite Combs case at 508 and Hadden case at 399. In Combs, an employee aggravated a pre-existing cerebral aneurism during an employer-sponsored lunch hour aerobics class, during which she developed a headache. Combs at 506. She was taken to the company’s “quiet room” where she was supposed to be looked after by company personnel, but was not. Combs at 506. The Virginia Supreme Court held in that case that the failure of company personnel to adequately look after her was a sudden precipitating event, and that the resulting
…show more content…
The stabbing resulted in severe mechanical and structural changes to her body that caused her to lose excessive amounts of blood, culminating in death. This is similar to Combs in that the injury was incidental to an event that occurred in the workplace, and from that incidental event, mechanical and structural changes to the body resulted. Combs at 508-509. Hannon’s injury also fits the second definition offered by the Virginia Supreme Court in Haddon that the injury be unusual and unexpected. Haddon at 399. Much as Haddon would not have expected to be harassed or discriminated at work, Hannon likely did not expect to be stabbed at her workplace. Haddon at 399. While we cannot know for sure that Hannon did not expect to be stabbed at work that day, it seems to be a reasonable deduction given that she voluntarily was watering the flowers and did not know the assailant. Accordingly, Hannon’s injury constitutes an accident under the Workers’ Compensation
Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits anyone knowingly or willfully offering, paying or soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly; in cash or kind; in exchange for; patient referrals or furnishing or arranging a good or service for a Federal healthcare program including Medicare or Medicaid. Stark would also apply to Hanlester as well but Stark was not enacted until after the Hanlester case. Stark is strict liability, does not require the knowingly/willfully element, and is not prosecuted criminally.
In the case of Tomcik v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction, the main issue present was the medical negligence demonstrated by the staff of the medical clinic at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction towards the inmate Tomcik. Specifically, nonfeasance, or the “failure to act, when there is a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances” (Pozgar, 2016, p. 192), was displayed when the employees at the medical clinic failed to give immediate medical attention to Tomcik when she continually signed the clinic list and “provided the reason she was requesting
In 1994, football pro and actor Orenthal James Simpson was tried for the murder of his wife and a waiter. O.J.’s wife and the waiter were found murdered outside of her condo. O.J. and his wife had divorced to years prior to the murder, so in retrospect, O.J. automatically looks guilty. O.J.’s wife was found stabbed multiple times in the head and neck. There were also wounds on her hands, showing that she tried to defend herself from the assailant. The wounds to her neck were so severe, her throat was gaping wide open and her spine had been pierced by the blade.
The theories in which I base my decision on are res ipsa loquitor and negligence per se. Res ipsa loquitor means that “it creates a presumption that the defendant was negligent because he or she was in exclusive control of the situation and that the plaintiff would not have suffered an Injury”. Negligence per se means “an act of the defendant that violates a statute regulation or ordinance can be used to establish a breach of the duty of due care” (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 163). Therefore, the injuries of the Prius driver and the people at the train station, I believe that George is at fault of negligence, because of negligence, carelessness and is foreseeable. Now as for the sparks from the wiring caught that lead to the other chain of events. I feel that George should not be held accountable for negligence, because it was unforeseeable. He could not prevent that it can cause a barn to explode and setting forth a series of
In the case study 4.1 (Tardif v. Wiebe), we learned that vicarious liability does not always applied on employers for employee’s wrongdoings. In most cases, the decisions are made upon determining weather employee was acting in their own personal capacity and interest, or in the course of their employment.
“A friend of mine, Barbara Silva, a nurse at Waltham school was driving to work on Route 128 when another car suddenly cut her off. For some reason the truck ahead of [that car] braked abruptly and [the car] banged into it. She slammed into [the car]. It was a horrible accident. It could have been avoided if [the other car] hadn’t jumped lanes.
5. Plaintiff’s nerve was severed under her left arm when an epee sliced through plaintiff’s jacket.
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
Injuries inflicted on Leanne’s body suggested that whoever caused her injuries intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
In what is known as the largest malpractice case in Maryland is the case of Enso Martinez and Rebecca Fielding against John Hopkins Hospital. In this situation, Ms. Fielding was taken to the hospital for an emergency caesarean section. Grant...
The Lewis Blackman Case: Ethics, Law, and Implications for the Future Medical errors in decision making that result in harm or death are tragic and costly to the families affected. There are also negative impacts to the medical providers and the associated institutions (Wu, 2000). Patient safety is a cornerstone of higher-quality health care and nurses serve as a communication link in all settings which is critical in surveillance and coordination to reduce adverse outcomes (Mitchell, 2008). The Lewis Blackman Case 1 of 1 point accrued
The defendants could argue that Helen Happy’s suffered harm was incalculable, and that the physical and psychological harm she endured was a random case, and wouldn’t have happened to most people. However, the Thin Skull Rule says differently. The Thin Skull Rule was instituted after there was a man that had a piece of metal debris hit his head, and instead of having a large bruise, his skull caved in. In this man’s case, the judge ruled for him, and said that “you do not get to choose your victim”. Therefore, just because it happened to someone more susceptible -Helen Happy-it does not excuse the harm she suffered and the harm the defendants caused, even if it was a special
Chapter 19. p413. John G.Fleming [4] P419. Textbook on Torts 8th edition. Michael A.Jones [5] Vicarious Liability for Employers. Andrew Scott-Howman.
This was the first time the idea came up that injured employees should be compensated, no matter who was at fault for the accident. This was the sign of the beginnings of change, but perspectives on health and safety still held employees responsible and accountable for all injuries and incidents. Moreover, at this time in history, the federal government did not view workplace safety as an area where it had jurisdiction. The.
Accidents occur in the workplace but in secret. These most of the time lead to physical and mental injuries that might affect the worker way of living for the rest of their lives. It is estimated that more than 337 million workers get injured in their place of work or in the course of work every year leading to work-related diseases causing about 2.3 million deaths per year (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).