Employer's Duty of Care and Issues of Compensation Research Paper

Employer's Duty of Care and Issues of Compensation - Research Paper Example This issue can be related to the case Hatton  vs.  Sutherland held in 1998, which involved a dispute concerning  compensation  of injuries at work place (Legal Information Institute, 2010). Jake’s  action  in  association  to his scope of employment Scope of  employment  is determined  by the role taken by an employee, which is in accordance with his/her employment contract. This will also  mean that an employer will  refer  to the contract to undertake any action concerning injuries suffered in work places. Jake’s scope of action in reference to his  employment  agreement entails that he should be responsible for checking brakes, tires, oil and transmissions in vehicles from the showroom. As per the employment scope, individual employees are to be compensated for any case of injury, which might occur while in a working station (Steingold, 2010). This is beneficial to the employer in case there is no possibility of employee delivering as per the scope of employment. This will mean that the  employer  will not  take  any responsibility actions  being undertaken  by the employee. Jake’s  role  is service delivery, and he  has been authorized  to  change  the oils in the vehicles regardless of the situations with the vehicles (US Legal, 2011). However, Jake decided to  service  the  whole  vehicle. ... It is for this  reason  that  I  reckon that Jake’s  action  is within his scope of employment. If Jake  had been hired  to change the oil only and not to  service  the vehicles, then he would have been acting out of his scope (Steingold, 2010). Herman’s responsibility for Jake’s injury Jake’s  injury  that occurred while at work is the responsibility of Herman. During the time of the injury, he was working within his scope of employment. Therefore, he  was injured  while he was on duty. That is why the employer should be responsible as stated in the scope of employment. This scope  is usually determined  under the doctrine of superiors, which states that the  employer  is  answerable  (Nolo Law for All, 2010). This  doctrine  also underlines that an employer should assume  responsibility  of the employee since he is  superior  and the employee works under him. That is the reason why the employer should b e  accountable  for any injury suffered by an employee during the time he/she is on duty at work. The employees  are also covered  under the insurance package of the organizations, which means their employers should compensate them in case of injuries at work. In this case, Jake is under the protection of State workers’ compensation laws. This ensures that employees  are compensated  for any injuries incurred during the working hours. This puts Herman into the  picture  as he  is supposed  to be liable to compensate the injury incurred by Jake (Nolo Law for All, 2010). Jake’s overtime  payment Jake is not eligible for overtime payment as he is among the management team in the company owned by Herman. This is because from their dialog we understand that he is on permanent payroll, compared to the