Case Study Harry Hiller

1241 Words5 Pages
I. INTRODUCTION To be guilty or not to be guilty- that is the question. Who is responsible for John Schmidt 's June 7 on-the-job injury? Was Mr. Schmidt liable for his own injury due to negligence? Did the Company 's Forman, Harry Hiller, have a "duty of care" to properly oversee employees utilizing highly dangerous equipment? Was Mr. Hiller or additional parties responsible for thoroughly inspecting equipment to prevent hazardous conditions within the workplace? The intent of this critical analysis is to identify the major issue surrounding a workplace injury, decipher the evidence, and make an informed decision or reasonable solution. This comprehensive assessment will comprise of a brief description of the case study, identification of the issue, an overview and evaluation of the evidence, and recommendation for…show more content…
Schmidt in a difficult situation. Although Mr. Schmidt followed proper safety procedures when utilizing the table saw, liability may still rest with Mr. Schmidt Person #2: David Donald, Shop Manager Evidence/ Facts: • Asserts table saw is safe due to no negative feedback from Harry Hiller Analysis: This is an assumption that Harry Hiller is properly conducting his work duties. As a manager, Mr. Donald 's should properly supervise his employees. Mr. Donald should have been more involved and aware of defective equipment over taking Mr. Hiller 's statements as the only truth. Since Mr. Donald was "not aware" of the defect in the equipment, this does not exclude Mr. Donald from being a negligent party in this case. Person #3: Harry Hiller, Foreman Evidence/ Facts: • Insists table saw is well maintained and satisfactorily • Has maintenance records to prove above statement • Claims "he saw John Schmidt 'joking, laughing, and goofing around with co-workers" before the
Open Document