One of the original intentions for the establishment of workers’ compensation laws was to protect employers from the drastic effects of failing to provide safe work environments. Prior to the passage of such laws, employees who were injured due to their employers’ negligence sued the employers under traditional negligence or personal injury law. Under that system, if the employer was found negligent, the employee could recover not only medical expenses and lost wages, but also such damages as pain and suffering. The parties had a right to a trial and the awards in particular cases could be exorbitant against the employer.
Therefore, workers’ compensation systems, which are considered to be “no fault”, were instituted, giving employees a trade-off of guaranteed and supposedly quicker, establishment of benefits. Employers, on the other hand, gained in that they no longer had to defend against numerous lawsuits since they were granted virtual immunity from lawsuits for their negligence. A determination as to whether the employer’s or the employee’s negligent behavior caused the problem is irrelevant. Some, who find workers’ compensation an uneven trade-off between employer and employee, argue that, under most state workers’ compensation systems, employers often do not have to worry about the cost of possible consequential injuries, even in cases where they are more than merely negligent. However, under certain circumstances in most states, there are injuries for which the employee may either sue the employer or a third party, as in the case of injuries resulting from faulty or defective equipment. If you feel that you were injured due to your employers negligence and would like a free no-obligation consultation, click here.