A tort is a legal wrong, and in this case the legal wrong is nothing being done to prevent an accident from happening on the job. It is a company's responsibility to ensure the safety of employees. Kofsy may not of been a direct employee, but he did deliver items to this place of business. He has as much legal rights as an employee as well as patients and visitors to the hospital. What would of happened if a patient wandered out there or a visitor got lost, and tripped and fell down because of that crack That is an endangerment to anyone who comes in contact with that area.
Pat Seiple had Kofsy bringing that bed off of the truck to show him the difficulty he was having, and what could possibly happen if he used the steel plate. Technically, knowing that this could injure himself, he shouldn't have done it or at least not done it without help. Pat Seipe had refused to help due to company policies. Kofsy still attempted to bring the bed off of the truck with and without the steel plate, and then when it got stuck he struggled to get it out resulting in his own injury. Who is at fault
A tort law helps distinguish who is at fault, and who is responsible for the damages. This case here is considered an unintentional tort due to negligence. The tort law helps focus on the consequences on this accident. First what needs to be determined is whether this case is a 'fault' liability (the plaintiff's fault), or a 'strict' liability (the defendant or both are at fault). In this situation, it seems to me that both are at fault here. Due to the fact that this area was not repaired so deliveries could be made without injuries or damages, and to the fact that Kofsy could of refused to move the bed after it got stuck. He had informed Pat that it would get stuck with the steel plate, and he went ahead to prove it to him. He could of refused knowing what would have happened, and someone could have seriously got hurt. However, it is still the company's responsibility to provide a safe atmosphere for all.
This misfortune incurred costs to Kofsy, and it now has to be decided on who is responsible for them. The tort law was developed to allow victims the opportunity to shift the costs that befall them to others. It provides an avenue of redress, but not a guarantee of recovery. The law states, "A's wrong must be the proximate cause of B's harm." (Coleman, Oct. 20, 2003) In other words, it was the hospital's wrong causing Kofsy's harm. Therefore this case would fall under a tort. Under the principle of corrective justice, it is stated, "An individual who has wronged another has the duty to repair the wrongful losses occasioned." (Coleman, 2003)
Due to the negligence of repairs, Kofsy has suffered from his injuries, accumulated hospital bills, and lost money from being out of work. Is this area repaired though to prevent future accidents
All of this could have been prevented if both parties took safety measures. However,
this isn't the case here. We now have to decide on how Kofsy will be compensated if at all.
Even though his actions caused this injury by struggling to remove the bed from being stuck by himself, the company still should have had this fixed prior to avoid any injuries. It is not like Kofsy didn't let anyone aware of the damage at the hospital. It should have been fixed right away leaving the discussion of the subject and demonstration out of it. The company should be responsible for all medical bills incurring from what