{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Critical Analysis_Tolson_Fall2015

Critical Analysis_Tolson_Fall2015 - Running Head...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Running Head: Responsibility for Accident CRITICAL ANALYSIS Responsibility for Accident UCSP 615 9089 Denise Tolson 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Running Head: Responsibility for Accident Introduction On June 7, John Schmidt was seriously injured on the job. There is a continuing dispute over who is at fault, the company or the employee. Of course both sides in this case are attributing the cause of the injury on the other. The details of this situation must be examined closely to make an accurate determination of fault. Explanation of the Issue or Problem The facts of the case are John Schmidt has seriously injured his hand while performing his job. Mr. Schmidt was pushing a large piece of wood through a table saw in the production shop. The dispute lies in who is to blame. Mr. Hiller the foreman insists the machine was maintained to standards, and has good maintenance records. The problem that ascends here is that there was a health and safety report that determined and reported the safety guard was poorly designed to protect operators. It is unclear whether Mr. Hiller was aware of the report or the problem prior to Mr. Schmidt injury. Mr. Hiller also claims that Mr. Schmidt was not practicing safety measures while operating the machine as he was “goofing around”. Another co-worker reported issues with the poor design of the table saw guard causing the machine to not function well.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}