Widget’s, Inc., a fictional company, has a flourishing lawncare business. The business has two full-time employees who have been with the company for five years. All employees are trained on using the lawn equipment and have signed a waiver-of-liability contract limiting liability for the company. The owner, Brian, told his employees not to worry—that the company would protect them if they got hurt.
One employee, Lori, was on the job cutting a lawn. Lori was riding a mower, a Ferrari 2000, which was three years old and in good working condition. The step-up on the mower had writing on it with a warning sticker to replace the sandpaper liner for traction every three due to normal wear and tear. It was replaced every three years. Lori stepped down off the rider, slipped because of moisture from the grass, and severed her pinky toe on the mower blade.
When she fell to the ground, the mower continued through the grass and proceeded by itself to cut and mulch a neighbor’s prize roses. Peta, the neighbor, was preparing for a rose competition with a potential grand prize of $10,000.
The waiver of liability legal and verbal assurances as part of the contract
Waivers of liability are frequently being used by companies as a scare measure towards workers to prevent them from seeking legal compensation for injuries. In theory, a waiver of liability, depending on how it is worded and written, may shield the company from any and all responsibility related to worker injury (Merkin & Clark, 2017). In practice, however, many courts in different states often declare liability waivers to be unenforceable due to being all-encompassing, too vague, or anything in between (Merkin & Clark, 2017). Courts look upon legal waivers with disfavor and put them under intense scrutiny (Merkin & Clark, 2017).
Since the case does not give the details of the waiver, it is difficult to say whether or not the waiver is legal. Since the state where the injury occurred is not mentioned either, answering the question directly is impossible. In the state of California, for example, a liability waiver is legally binding, whereas, in Connecticut, Montana, or Virginia, they are not (Merkin & Clark, 2017). As for the verbal promise to take care of one’s employees, it is too vague and unspecified in the case study to make a conclusion. Based on how it was worded, a verbal agreement made in good faith may be legally binding.
A product liability case against the mower manufacturer Ferrari
The case study does not offer enough details and nuance to answer the question of whether Peta has a product liability case against the mower manufacturer Ferrari for a design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure-to-warn defect. The product did issue a written warning to replace the sandpaper surface covering every three years, which was performed by the owner of the lawnmower. The description of the event in the case study says that Lori fell after stepping off the lawnmower, slipping on wetness from the grass. It is unclear if she slipped off the step of the lawnmower or if she slipped once her feet were on the ground. It is also unclear if the moisture from the grass was the result of Ferrari ejecting grass moisture onto the place where the operator disembarks (design defect), or whether the grass was moist because of rain, morning dew, or some other source of water (Merkin & Clark, 2017). A manufacturing defect is also possible if the lawnmower, by design, was not supposed to spread water from the mown glass in that direction but did so anyway (Merkin & Clark, 2017). Should these matters be clarified, it would be possible to answer with greater certainty whether Peta deserves compensation for a design or manufacturing defect.
Lori’s claim for her injuries and worker’s compensation
A worker’s compensation is a kind of compensation that a worker would receive after sustaining an injury in the workplace (Merkin & Clark, 2017). Since Lori was performing work for the company when she sustained an injury, she is entitled to a worker’s compensation, as per the law of the state the incident occurred (Merkin & Clark, 2017). Lori lost a toe, which constitutes a significant injury and a permanent amputation (Merkin & Clark, 2017). The loss of a limb or a body part is associated with increased pain and suffering, in addition to traumatic psychological effects (Alexander et al., 2021). A worker who lost a toe in such a manner is eligible for compensation for pain and suffering in addition to medical expenditures as well as lost income (Alexander et al., 2021). The pain and suffering damages are difficult to estimate because of their nonphysical nature, but compensation for such an event may be substantial.
References
Alexander, B. M., Wurzelbacher, S. J., Zeiler, R. J., & Naber, S. J. (2021). Lessons learned from Ohio workers’ compensation claims to mitigate hazards in the landscaping services industry. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 64(8), 699-713. Web.
Merkin, R., & Clarke, M. A. (2017). The law of liability insurance. Routledge.