Michael Buckley Case Summary

Evaluate Criminal Law and Legal Rights in a Business Context

In the case of Michael Buckley, it seemed to be a difficult situation to remedy; however, it would seem that clearly Buckley had experienced a situation of exposure. The exposure was evident, Mr. Buckley’s body covered in a substance known to cause illness and death, e.g., Cancer (Montgomery, 1998) . Nevertheless, Buckley did not seek any help in understanding his situation therefor, he did not show signs of a traumatic experience. Buckley would later file suit under the direction of federal employer liability act (FELA) (Montgomery, 1998; Twomey, Jennings, & Anderson, 2011). The lawsuit was based primarily on the belief that Mr. Buckley had indeed encountered a traumatic episode that rendered Buckley emotionally distressed. However, according to the readings, Buckley did experience and exposure to a harmful substance, e.g. asbestos it would be difficult under the terms of the law to prove he experienced a traumatic event being that Buckley refuses any assistance from the psychiatrist or medical personnel determine his State of mind at that time. Still under the law as it's reviewed by the second court Buckley had only to express concern as stated in the court preceding e.g., Metro – North Transit Inspector General, Supervisor,

However, under the federal employers' liability act of 1908 and amended 1920, as well as the Jones Act, Buckley was therefore covered for the negligence of the railroad due to the exposure received over several years (Montgomery, 1998) . It was all but clear in the case of Atkinson Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company v. Bull, as to the requirements of the railroad as it pertains to injury and employees. However, in subsequent years, the question was answered in the case of Consolidated Railroad Corp. v.