Employer's Duty of Care and Issues of Compensation Research Paper

Employers Duty of precaution and Issues of Compensation - Research Paper ExampleThis issue can be related to the case Hattonvs.Sutherland held in 1998, which involved a dispute concerningcompensationof injuries at work place (Legal Information Institute, 2010). Jakes featinassociationto his image of employment Scope ofemploymentis determinedby the role taken by an employee, which is in accordance with his/her employment conduct. This will alsomean that an employer willreferto the contract to on a lower floortake any action concerning injuries suffered in work places. Jakes scope of action in elongation to hisemploymentagreement entails that he should be responsible for checking brakes, tires, crude oil and transmissions in vehicles from the showroom. As per the employment scope, somebody employees argon to be reconciled for any case of injury, which might occur while in a working station (Steingold, 2010). This is beneficial to the employer in case there is no possibility of employee delivering as per the scope of employment. This will mean that theemployerwill nottakeany responsibility actionsbeing undertakenby the employee. Jakesroleis service delivery, and hehas been authorizedtochangethe oils in the vehicles regardless of the situations with the vehicles (US Legal, 2011). However, Jake decided toservicethe self-colouredvehicle. ... It is for thisreasonthatIreckon that Jakesactionis within his scope of employment. If Jakehad been hiredto change the oil only and not toservicethe vehicles, then he would have been acting out of his scope (Steingold, 2010). Hermans responsibility for Jakes injury Jakesinjurythat occurred while at work is the responsibility of Herman. During the clock of the injury, he was working within his scope of employment. Therefore, hewas injuredwhile he was on duty. That is wherefore the employer should be responsible as stated in the scope of employment. This scopeis usually determinedunder the doctrine of superiors, which stat es that theemployerisanswerable(Nolo Law for All, 2010). Thisdoctrinealso underlines that an employer should assumeresponsibilityof the employee since he issuperiorand the employee working under him. That is the reason why the employer should beaccountablefor any injury suffered by an employee during the time he/she is on duty at work. The employeesare also coveredunder the insurance package of the organizations, which heart their employers should compensate them in case of injuries at work. In this case, Jake is under the protection of State workers compensation laws. This ensures that employeesare compensatedfor any injuries incurred during the working hours. This puts Herman into thepictureas heis supposedto be liable to compensate the injury incurred by Jake (Nolo Law for All, 2010). Jakes overtime payment Jake is not eligible for overtime payment as he is among the management team in the company owned by Herman. This is because from their dialog we scan that he is on permane nt payroll, compared to the