I wish to ask your opinion. I am writing a conclusion about workplace safety, and would like to know what you think so far.
"Although workers compensation law must provide a balance, it should never
form a loophole for those employers who want to price out risks that are going to
cause injury. A "true intent" interpretation of the exclusivity exception will give you
such a loophole. This is because when an employer has immunity for culpability up
to pure intent, any risk that was taken for a legitimate business purpose will never
qualify for an exception. However, courts using a relaxed view of intent are going to
prevent such pricing out of workplace injuries. Only a relaxed standard will let you
bring a tort claim for a substantially certain risk of injury - effectively tearing down
the financial incentive by increasing cost. Thus the proper standard is never going
to be true intent when the goal is increasing workplace safety. But, it is critical to
remember that workers compensation represents a
quid-pro-quo and we can't run
the risk of upsetting the balance. Using an intent standard somewhere around
"substantial certainty" would continue to provide immunity for safe employers and
only increase the liability exposure for those employers whose actions would desert
the standard of "accident under tort. Therefore, when defining exclusivity, if you..."
What do you think?