Physical Injury And Employee Compensation
The compensation to employees under the English law enables the claimant to attain social security benefit and duty of care for recovery, against the employer’s liability in establishing the compensation system as per the law of tort. The regime of compensation entitlement in the Worker’s Compensation Act of 1897 further elaborates the welfare measures for accommodating insurance coverage and access to work claims as per tort for the purpose of creating a non fault system for employees injured. This paper will evaluation case scenarios based on employee injury for devising recommendation for legal arbitration and claims for the liability of compensation against employees in order to recover damages and gain the right of care and preferential treatment.
As per the provision of Workmen Compensation Act of 1923; employers are bound by the legal liability to compensate the obligation for compensation for the accidents happening subsequent to physical and psychological injury to the workers. The provision entails for the mandate of injury caused in the premises of the workplace . Further section. 3 mentions about the liability of employees to pay compensation in accordance to provision of Chapter 3 of Workmen Compensation Act 1923 . However, in consideration of legal obligation to the employer; the significant consideration as per the statute entails for the existence of personal injury and occurrence of an accident during the term of employment .
Part – A
According to the case scenario; the EU directive passed in 2013 entails for the compensation scheme for the workers injured in industrial accidents for coverage of medical and treatment costs. The compensation scheme introduced is based on the ordinary law of negligence to recognize the liability of the employers for various considerations resulting in financial burden and healthcare costs . Furthermore, the case scenario presents the situation of two employees John and Penelope who have experienced workplace injury and are being compensated for injuries by their respective employers.
Since accidents to both the employees Penelope and John occurred prior 2013, both tend to be eligible for availing compensation to the physical injuries under the Workmen Compensation Act 2008 for the damages incurred on part of their employer’s liability under Common Law . The process of claiming the compensation for damages is ascertain regardless of the age discrimination, duration of employment and income level earned by the workers. As both John and Penelope are getting reimbursed with their employers for physical injuries; the compensation made is to be retained through a fixed formula as under the Workmen Injury compensation act. Furthermore, both are entitled to claim medical expenses including hospitalization, treatment, and medical counseling .
With enactment of Health and Safety Legislation in 1992 in United Kingdom; the scope for various deriviations has enables effective coverage for the regulations related to workplace safety, imposing strict liability over the employers . A major realization to influence the devising of statute had been for taking precautions for establishment of compensation schemes through European Union Directive to enforce adequate assessment which may affect lead to the causation of injuries to workforce .
However, the Common Law of United Kingdom does not allow the compensations vulnerable to seek redress from law of tort, since the nature of the types of claims is restricted without consideration of special cases as reflected in Hatton v Sutherland . Similarly, in provision of economic losses to the claimants, the Common Law protects the unduly claims towards the employers such as in Reid v Rush & Tomkins  for reimbursement of the loss is salary due to economic downturn and temporary closure of the business production.
In case of John who suffered from broken rib, arms, concussion and leg, he is eligible for the fixed compensation formulae of monthly income *multiplying factor * % of loss of earning capacity, which sets the minimum limit for compensation equal to the income earned; £30,000 a year. Similarly, for Penelope, the provision for compensation as per WICA entails for additional coverage up to 25% of the compensation amount in case of total incapacity lost permanently with the accident. The Workmen Injury Compensation Act also protects the right of duty for the claimants for receiving medical leave wages and full time hospitalization coverage on part of the employers . John and Penelope may also claim for their convalescence salary payable by up to 250% of the income value for both of them have been resultant with severe impairment and injuries of more than six weeks after accident with statute enactment and compliance with the UnitedKingdom Common Law.
In order to file for the damages in compliance with the Common Law Penelope and John will have to provide evidence in regard to the inconsistencies and counterfall for providing a safer working environment. For instance, the chemical spill in case of Penelope and breakable scaffolding leading to the fall of John will providethe basis for causation to allege the claim of duty of care and damage imbursement against the employers’ liability held for the breach of duty. The reasonable breach in standard of safer workplace such as in Donoghue v Stevenson and Lochgelly Iron & Coal v M’Mullan will be recognized as legal liability for care actuality towards theclaimants.
Filing for Damages in Proceedings under Work Injury Compensation Act
In filing under the English Common law for compensation of workplace injury; the recognition of the compensation will be based upon the suffering, loss of incapacities to the employees, physical disabilities, treatment and injury costs and medical expenses . In approaching the judiciary court in United Kingdom, John and Penelope must realize the amount of damagers burdening then for Districts courts under the subordinate courts may grant upto the compensation claims of $250,000 and Magistrate court up to the limit of $60,000 Moreover, the case can also be recognized with the High Court if the claimant’s valued damaged incurred of more than $250,000, for approaching Court of Appeal in constitute of fourteen days of judgment for the final appeal and decision .
Serving Notice of Assessment
However, prior proceeding; the case along with the medical report and evidence for workplace safety must be filed with the Ministry of Manpower within the one year of the date of accident occurred. Consequently, Ministry of Manpower will deploy Notice of Assessment on duration of fourteen days for medical assessment and undergo the consideration of Work Injury Medical Board . Once the Notice of Assessment is served, the claims will undergo the determination of English Commissioner of Labour Court, to foresee the employee’s liability in injury compensation within the duration of next twenty one days for reimbursement . In case of John, if he claims the compensation worth £30,000 a year the filing of notice for objection at the Ministry of Manpower will issue the Notice Assessment for decision in consequent twenty eight days, with provision for the right to withdraw the case within the time .
Approaching Workmen Injury Compensation Act
The claims made for the compensation on employer’s liability will comply with the statute of for dispute resolution under Workmen Injury Compensation Act . However, if the claimant pursues WICA approach he would no longer be entitled to suing the liable employer under Common Law . In case of both the employees suffered from permanent impairment and incapacities; the Ministry of manpower will subsequently precede the case with Labour court for the hearings followed by medical tests assessed by the Work Injury Compensation Medical Board. Therefore, the resolute compensation scheme as per the EU law will be compensated following twenty one days by the defendant liable employer.
On contrary to approaching Workmen Injury Compensation Act ; both Penelope and John may approach Magistrate or District Court in accordance to the Common Law to file their claims for compensation of injuries causation to workplace. In this approach the claimants; John and Penelope will need to satisfy the judiciary for evident unsafe workplace environment, consequent to injurious damages suffered. The resolution consequently, will adopt measures for medical assessment and workplace safety examination to foresee enforceable liability of employee for breach in duty, through the process of legal proceedings . John and Penelope may approach Workmen Injury Compensation Act for requiring a convenient procedure and optimization of fixed formulae for adequate compensation of injuries to workers.
Enactment of EU Directive
With enactment of EU Directive in 2014, the compensation schemes for the workers injured in industrial accidents; will be held entitled to employer’s liability offering 250% of the employee income among for the period of recover. As per the directive passed; John and Penelope have greater chances to successfully claim compensation for damages under Common Law against their employers for the negligence and breach of duty . However, the legal proceedings will require them to provide sufficient evidence for the safety system and workplace conditions to prove the failure on part of their employers . In this case, John has greater chances for claiming higher compensation payment due to the clause of retirement and public liability held. In addition, he suffered greater incapacities for the impairment in leg, arm, concussion and rib for satisfying the High Court’s judgment .
This may also allow him to seek the Public Liability Act 1980 to attain assistance of the public bodies in injury compensation at the age of retirement. As denoted by Waller L J, in granting public liability the forsee ability is precautious to the dangerous activities and professional duties such as in case of John was scaffolding . Similarly, Lord Woolf C J insisted on inspecting viability of insurance to resolute on contractors ability of the public bodies to meet the claims of right to compensation . In Wattleworth v Goodwood  P.I.Q.R. P24; the defendant company liable for the injury in fatal motor racing accident was enforced the consideration duty for installing barriers and device safer design for work activities in compliance with the section. 2(4) of Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 .
Similarly, in Watson v British Boxing Board of Control  2 W.L.R. 1256 ; plaintiff suffered severe head injuries worsening over time, which was recognized as the incapacity liable to the defendant for resultant in governing the boxing activities in Britain through collaboration of board of boxing and imposing safety regulations and standards to eliminate personal injuries subsequently. In Chief Adjudication Officer v Faulds  the need to demonstrate the evidence for psychological change and permanent incapacities is essential for the realization of EC court of the suffering and troubles, such as in the case physical deterioration in disc proved to be the condition itself incapacity to work for disability occurring have minimum of 14% affect for the compensation to be paid.
Part – B
Quantum of State Liability
The statuary system in the European Community has been constantly reconsidering extensive measures for equalizing the rights to commercial parties and individuals for assisting in the challenges related to personal injury and violence in accordance to the Common Law. In efforts to seek national stage in development of state liability; the concept of liability in complex situations is administered to the provisions of European Court of Justice, as per the Article 226 of European Community . Similarly, in Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ; the European court held the public as well as private distinction as per the provision of Article 5 of European Community for appropriate measures to foresee community obligations. Therefore, under the community laws, the district court may restrain the interpretation of compensatory rights as per Community law for the breach of legitimate claims made by the individuals and parties for physical injury compensation . However, this implication is persistent to the limitations recognized by the European Community Judiciary for consideration of adequate directives to enforce liability.
In case of John and Penelope, the consideration for state liability in compensation of injury will be based on particular criterion to assess the nature of primary problem such as to seek remedy with awareness of the community rights to the individuals and with implementation of directive for upto 250% compensation by the liable employers on injuries caused to the workers. In addition, the European Community Judiciary further established conditions to satisfy for the legal proceedings for state liability for evaluating the conferring of rights to the individual’s interests for compensation, the objective for the claimants rights to be determined with directive legislation and the claims and causation satisfying the link to breach of duty and negligence on part of the employers for resultant in physical damages and injury suffered . Hence, these conditions are satisfied by both Penelope and John to pursue state liability, in consideration to the evidence for workplace safety and medical assessment .
Historically, the rights to state liability were developed by the European court in Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic ; as a supplemental provision to administer remedial inadequacies to the commercial and private parties with obligation to the European Community Law. However, inconsistencies still prevail for the notion and concise of English Courts for holding accountability of entire cases on state itself. However, this redundancy of the European Community Courts have been redesigned in Article 288 (2) in order to examine the seriousness of breach and horizontal effects for incurred incapacities and harm resultant to the breach of duty and negligence to foster safer working environment for the workers .
The Schoppenstedt formulaedevice by the European Law rights has enabled protecting the personal rights to avail remedy to physical harms through administration of the public bodies to share the burden of insurance and healthcare costs .The development EC directives and legislation has enables restoring the industrial injury compensationschemes on the basis of distinction between contractual and commercial party rights of the workers, facing difficulties and impairments on the basis of tort liability to retain safety measures and duty of care to the employers.
- Betlem, G. (2005). Torts, a European ius commune and the private enforcement of community law. The Cambridge Law Journal, 64(01), 126-148.
- C. Harlow, (2004). State Liability. Tort Law and Beyond (Oxford: Oxford University Press), at132.
- Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, (1995). Coverage under the Industrial Injuries Scheme for Injury by ‘Process’; Position No 9.
- J. Stapleton, (1994). ‘In Restraint of Tort’ in P. Birks’ (ed), The Frontiers of Liability (Oxford: Oxford University Press), vol 2, at 84.
- R Lewis, (2005). The Relationship between Tort Law and Insurance in England and Wales, in: G Wagner (ed), Tort Law and Liability Insurance.