Because an employee that has been injured on the job can get compensated through workmen’s comp, such a worker does not need to sue the employer. Still, there are times when an employee does have sound reason for suing the employer.
Consider what could happen to an employee that must travel as part of his or her job:
If that same employee were traveling by car, he or she might get into a car accident. Then it is possible that the owner of the damaged vehicle, the working driver, might need to sue his or her employer. That would be the case, if the damage to the employer’s vehicle was extensive and the employer’s injuries qualified as catastrophic.
In such a situation, the employee’s insurance policy might not cover the expenses adequately, Because the employer had sent the worker on a trip, the employer’s insurance could get used to cover some of the expenses. That is why consulting a personal injury lawyer in Cambridge can help.
Possible defense to be made by the employer:
The employer’s lawyer might be able to show that a 3rd party was responsible for the accident. In that case, the employer’s insurance would not have to cover the expenses. Instead the insurance policy of the 3rd party would become responsible for covering such expenses.
The extent of the employee’s loss, following an accident can also make it more appropriate for the launching of a lawsuit against the employer.
In 1994, a man died, while performing a work-related task at the time of an earthquake, the family sued the employer. Eventually, though the court ruled against the same family. The court accepted the argument that the earthquake was an act of nature, thus freeing the employer from his or her responsibility for the employee’s death.
In this case, the family that launched the lawsuit sought some monetary assistance, following the death of the family’s breadwinner. Normally, workmen’s compensation covers the lost wages of a worker that has been injured on the job. In this case, though, the worker had been killed, and, therefore, workmen’s comp did not cover the lost wages.
In other words, by suing the employer, the deceased worker’s family wanted to shine some light on a weakness in the policy, regarding workmen’s compensation. Their actions were meant to present the court with the nature of their situation, as caused by the employer’s policy.
At the time, the family’s actions seemed like a logical response, but that response failed to deliver the desired result. Consequently, there seems slight chance that such a lawsuit will be introduced in a courtroom in the near future. Of course, someone might try that approach in another state, one with a different type of natural disaster.