Tort Law for Workplace - Health and Safety Act -myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theTort Law for Workplace, Health and Safety Act. Answer: The Workplace, Health and Safety Act, 2006 is a law that regulates the safety and healthy working environment of workplaces in Singapore (Phillips et al., 2015). Employers need to take effective steps to maintain a hazard free and healthy work environment. Risk can be eliminated by checking the plants, instruments and equipments which are used on a daily basis, creating awareness in the workplace, maintaining safe working facilities. Risk can be managed by identifying the risks that are prevalent or are foreseeable. The owners need to ensure that healthy habits are cultivated in the workplace (Hofman, Burke Zohar, 2017). Safety measures should be undertaken by everyone, irrespective of their position. Every person at workplace shall be made to take reasonable steps to make sure no hazardous activities take place. Risk can be managed by promoting health awareness and also penalizing the culprits who do not encourage safety and healthy working (Reese, 2015). Safety at workplace is a b asic right which is mandatory for the owners to ensure. If any hazard takes place in any working environment that harms or injures an employee, the owners or the stakeholders shall be made liable. The owners of a factory or a workplace owe a duty of care towards their employee and their safe working. Safety at work place is a universal concept which has to be ensured at every working environment. The Employer or the Stakeholder is the owner under The Workplace, Health and Safety Act, 2006. To conduct risk, there has to be a robust functioning team to assess the risk. The Risk Assessment Team will ascertain specific risk areas and try to redress the same (Kvorning, Hasle Christensen, 2015). The Risk Assessment Team will comprise of the Team Manager and a few members under him. The team will have contractors, suppliers, and also have representations from both managerial and non-managerial levels. The team shall identify all the risks attached with the workplace and shall identify the units that have chances of causing hazard at the workplace. Therefore to conduct risk assessment, a proper understanding and knowledge of the workplace is mandatory. Every department, work area has to be properly checked to ensure that there is no scope of risk. The risk assessment team has to be in constant touch with the employees to know if any department is at a risk. Hazards Identified Who might be harmed and how? What are they already doing? What further action(s) is/are necessary? Action by who? Falls from height The employers working on water tanks on the terrace without any proper head gear will suffer head injury. The RA Team does not give new head gears and does not provide metal slings to climb. Proper head gear has to be arranged and there is a need for an ambulance to take the injured to the hospital immediately. The suppliers and contractors have to provide sturdy head gears and metal slings. Slips, trips and falls The employers working on construction of marble floors. The RA team has made anti-skid floors which are not fully functional. Strictly ensure water damage clean up services and water restoration services. The sewage team has to be contacted who need to clean the residual water and make sure there is no water blockage. Falling objects Ceiling fell on employees who were working on the ground floor. The team is looking at the construction and ensuring no cheap and poor construction material has been used. Qualified engineers and contractors need to be hired who are equipped to construct long lasting buildings which are not prone to collapse. Suppliers of raw materials have to be properly hired who are responsible for providing substances for construction. Egg-shell rule applies in cases when the defendant could not have foreseen the damage caused by his action. In the present case, there was an unintentional damage which is used for the test of reasonable foresee ability (Gilber Gilbert, 2017). This tries to help the defendants in cases of damage that arises due to any fault of the defendant. In this case, a video was sent to Nancys mother wherein she believed that her daughter has drowned and died. In this case, there was no duty of care owed to Nancys mother and she suffered psychiatric injury as a result of her inability to take the news. Balu did not have any duty of care towards Nancys mother and he could not foresee that the video could trigger such an emotion in her mother that she would suffer psychiatric injury. The egg shell rule applies in this case which is the primary case in situations when the defendant cannot reasonably foresee any damage. Therefore no duty of care can be established in this case and therefore he cann ot be held liable. Kelvin is in charge of a canoe team in Dave School. The School plans to take students on a canoe trip and on the way suffer serious accident. Negligence is defined as the breach of a legal duty to take care (Goldberg, Sebok Zipursky, 2016). To prove a case of breach of legal duty, is it important to understand whether there existed a duty of care. There are three elements to establish negligence: There exists a duty of care and there has been a breach of that duty resulting in damage which is not too remote (Wright, 2017). Novus actus interveniens breaks the chain of causation in cases where the defendant wants to absolve himself of all his liabilities. Novus actus interveniens could be any act that has broken the chain of causation like Act of God (Avraham, 2014). In the present case, the practice was done on a rainy day hence, the accident could be foreseen by a man of prudence. Kelvin knew it was a rainy day hence there were maximum chances of an accident, therefore, Kelvin is li able for negligence. Kelvin owed a duty of care to his students and he has breached his duty of care. Dave School being the employer is vicariously liable for the acts of his employers, that is, Kelvin because he is the teacher. Reference Avraham, R. (2014). Database of state tort law reforms (5th). Gilbert, R. J., Gilbert, P. T. (2017).Maryland Tort Law Handbook. LexisNexis. Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., Zipursky, B. C. (2016).Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress. Wolters Kluwer law business. Hofmann, D. A., Burke, M. J., Zohar, D. (2017). 100 years of occupational safety research: From basic protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and risk.Journal of Applied Psychology,102(3), 375. Kvorning, L. V., Hasle, P., Christensen, U. (2015). Motivational factors influencing small construction and auto repair enterprises to participate in occupational health and safety programmes.Safety science,71, 253-263. Phillips, J. A., Holland, M. G., Baldwin, D. D., Gifford-Meuleveld, L., Mueller, K. L., Perkison, B., ... Dreger, M. (2015). Marijuana in the workplace: Guidance for occupational health professionals and employers: Joint guidance statement of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.Workplace health safety,63(4), 139-164. Reese, C. D. (2015).Occupational health and safety management a practical approach. CRC press. Wright, J. (2017).Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.