Employers liability

Workmen s compensation insurance at statutory limits and employers liability insurance... 

Employers liability insurance protecting the toller against common law liability, in the absence of statutory liability, for employee injury arising out of the master-servant relationship with a specified limit per occurrence. 

A) Workmen s Compensation insurance at statutory limits and Employers Liability Insurance at not less than (X) aggregate and... 

Guidelines on Employers Liability and Public Liability Risk Assessment in the Chemical Industry (1992) Guidelines on Material Damage Risk Assessment in the Chemical Industry (3rd edn) (1992)... 

Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. A short guide (superseded by HSE 36 1998)... 

Employer Liability. Today more than ever before, employers are being challenged by their employees to prove that all possible effort was employed to reduce hazards in their work place. Many employers had not been able to prove they had done this, and, therefore, they have suffered costly settlements and increased liability insurance expenses. 

The few asbestos-processing plants do not pay for these costs, as they would presumably only have been able to do so with a very good third-party liability insurance, which for its part would have caused the product price to increase sharply. These costs are paid by the coimnunity of user and non-user plants in a particular industry via the employers habihty insurance in the constraction industry and the employers liability insurances in the metal industry). 

In many other cases of work-related exposure to hazardous substances, however, the cause/effect correlations do not permit such unequivocal proof. The number of acknowledged industrial diseases caused by hazardous substances should thus be much lower than the number of persons actually affected. Thus, the risks of compensation are accordingly low for the employers as the contributors to the employers liability insurance schemes. 

The high costs (approx. 30 m. per annum) of the construction employers liability insurance, caused by incidences of bricklayer s itch are important innovation drivers. Since the mid 1970s the construction employers habihty insurance, has endeavoured in consultations with the Association of German Cement Works to obtain a reduction of the chromate content in cement Further initiatives such as e.g. GISBAU" and also regulations have stepped up the pressure on cement manufacturers. 

Innovation drivers Alternative paint strippers have been developed as a consequence of the chlorine debate . However, neither the detailed requirements related to occupational health and safety (TRGS 612 and 212) nor the lower efficiency (cf (3)) clearly supported the penetration of the market with the alternative paint stripping systems. One barrier may be that the users have to change their work and purchasing procedures to apply the alternatives successfully. By end of the nineties the construction employers liability insurance started, based on the public media, an information campaign about the risks of DCM-containing paint strippers. 

Examples of functioning co-operation are partnerships between automotive producers, coating and installation manufacturers for the development and operation of low-emission automotive series coatings and co-operation between the employers liability insurance, IG Metall, lubricant manufacturers and metal processors in the creation of health-related standards for cooling lubricants. 

It is always open to question as to what extent the risk threshold for chemical noxae may be exceeded due to altered technical working procedures and individual conditions despite compliance with the legal regulations. The recruitment and monitoring criteria prescribed by the employers liability insurance association are of great importance in this respect. 

Meanwhile, in 1880 the British Parliament passed the Employers Liability Act which, among other things, restricted the use of the fellow servant defense. (Germany, the leader among industrial countries in this... 

Workers Compensation (WC) was developed because employers liability defenses were being overturned in court (chapter 4), and it won acceptance because workers needed a financial safety net in view of the human toll of work. It was not intended as an instrument for making work safer. But functions attach themselves to organs, and we have come to rely on WC to steer employers in the direction of injury and illness prevention. 

There are many accounts of the decline and subsequent reappearance of employer liability see, for instance, Ashford (1976) or Gersuny (1981). 

Liberal insistence on banning contracting out led to defeat of initial employer liability legislation in Britain in 1893. Workman s compensation was passed instead by the Tories in 1897. Ironically, as White has pointed out, Workers compensation [itself] can be viewed as one giant contracting out scheme. See White (1983, p. 63). 

In 1877, the Massachusetts legislature passed a law requiring safeguards for hazardous machinery. In the same year the Employer s Liability Law was passed, establishing the potential for employer liability in workplace accidents. 

Massachusetts passes law requiring safeguards on hazardous machines and the Employer Liability Law is passed. 

After 1885 the principle of employers liability in respect to employment injury began to appear in the legislation of the different states. New Yoik passed factory inspection legislation. Massachusetts was the first state to pass an act requiring that accidents be reported on June 1,1886. 

Employer liability laws (1 =laws present and no WC, 0 otherwise)... 

Manslaughter—Great Britain. 2. Criminal liability of juristic persons—Great Britain. 3. Employers liability—Great Britain. 

---