Employer Liability For Hazards

Summary

Employers are responsible for providing a safe work environment, including training on hazards. Federal employees working in unsafe conditions may still be covered by workers compensation, even if tasks are outside their usual duties or training. Workers compensation is typically the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries, regardless of negligence. Consult legal advice for specific guidance on filing a claim.

Full Conversation

Yes for legal liability of employer if a employee is working in this situation as i described would they did not have training on the hazard
In Idaho, employers are generally responsible for ensuring a safe work environment. If an employee is working in a poorly ventilated enclosed space with a new gas hazard and hasn't received training, the employer could be legally liable under OSHA regulations.
- Employers must provide training on workplace hazards.
- They must ensure proper ventilation and safety measures.
- Failing to do so can lead to legal liability for any resulting harm.
Do you need more details on how to proceed with this situation?
Would that federal employee be considered in scope of work or out scope of work
For a federal employee working in a poorly ventilated enclosed space with a new gas hazard and no training, the situation would generally be considered within the scope of work. This means the employer (in this case, the federal agency) could be held legally liable for not providing the necessary training and safety measures under OSHA regulations.
If you need more details on how to proceed or have any other questions, feel free to ask!
But then federal worker comp would be exclusive remedy
Case Rating: *
Federal worker compensation laws typically provide exclusive remedies for injuries sustained by federal employees during the course of their employment. This means that the employee would generally be limited to seeking compensation through the workers' compensation system rather than filing a lawsuit against the employer.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with a federal worker's compensation claim?
So would the employee be in scope if he did not have specific training and it was not in their job description to be in high risk or complicated tasks
Case Rating: *
Even if the tasks were not part of the employee's job description or they didn't have specific training, the situation may still fall under the scope of work for workers' compensation purposes.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with a federal worker's compensation claim?
How could they still be considered in scope
Case Rating: *
Even if the tasks are not part of the employee's job description or they haven't received specific training, the situation may still be considered "in scope" for the purposes of workers' compensation. This is because workers' compensation laws are designed to cover a wide range of work-related injuries, even if the tasks are not part of the employee's usual duties.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with a federal worker's compensation claim?
Can you explain that more
Case Rating: *
Sure! Workers' compensation laws aim to cover any injuries that occur in the course of employment, regardless of whether the specific tasks were part of the employee's usual duties or if they received training for those tasks. The idea is to ensure employees are protected and can receive compensation for work-related injuries.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with a federal worker's compensation claim?
But even when there was negligence
Case Rating: *
Yes, even if there was negligence, workers' compensation generally covers injuries sustained in the course of employment. This holds true even if the employee was performing tasks outside their usual duties or without specific training.
Would you like to know the steps to file a federal worker's compensation claim?