The Legal Issue Surrounding The Plaintiffs’ Janvier Et

1310 WordsMar 28, 20176 Pages
The legal issue surrounding the plaintiffs’ Janvier et al. deals with negligence in the workplace resulting in harm. Negligence is a form of tort law. The purpose of tort law is to compensate victims. Typically in order to claim negligence, the plaintiff must prove four things: duty of care, standard of care, that the plaintiff suffered injury or damage, and the defendants conduct caused injury to the plaintiff. Despite this claim of negligence, according to WCB legislation, the lawsuit filed by these plaintiffs is not actionable in court. As an employer worker relationship exists, the plaintiffs are not allowed to bring legal action upon their employer for damages. The WCB legislation prevents workers from suing their employers. In…show more content…
This case, although it is not mentioned in the article, is an example of occupiers’ liability. Occupiers’ liability is a negligence tort that imposes liability on occupants of land for harm suffered to visitors of the property. For this case, Skyway can argue that as CCRL is an employer to Skyway, and that CCRL has entered a contractual agreement with the plaintiff, there is an established relationship between the parties. To further illustrate a relationship, Skyway was invited onto the job site to perform services for CCRL, thus making the plaintiff an invitee. The plaintiff is arguing that the defendant owes Skyway the standard of care to a safe working environment. As outlined in The Occupational Health and Safety (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System) Regulations, RRS c S-15 Reg 6 (“OH&S”), every worker has the right to a safe working environment. A safe workplace was not provided because of CCLR’s negligence in maintaining the environment. Facility pipes that were due for replacement in 2010 were not changed. There is an obligation for occupiers to ensure that reasonable steps are taken to prevent foreseeable injuries. As the pipe, which caused the explosion, should have been replaced in 2010, the defendant did not take reasonable action to prevent this event. As the plaintiff is an invitee, it could prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a higher standard of care, which was not met by the defendant. As it relates to damages, the plaintiff lost

    More about The Legal Issue Surrounding The Plaintiffs’ Janvier Et

      Open Document