The Civil Liability for Personal Injuries Arising out of Negligence

Abstract

In the United States 28. As between different States 29.When Foreign Actions maintained 30.

The right to know and the duty to disclose hazard information.

“…Thus, where one was employed to remove hot slag from a furnace in close proximity to water, it was held that he should not be presumed to know that if the slag came into contact with the water a dangerous explosion might follow. 4 Common law principles established "the duty of the master to see that the employee is not induced to work, supposing...the place in which the work is to be done is safe, when in fact it is not safe. "5 To avoid a finding of fault and the attendant liability, an employer could choose among several options, each of which had the potential to prevent health risks to workers: for example, to voluntarily shut down the workplace, to remove the hidden hazards, or to disclose information to the employees at risk.…”

Charting the future course for corporate management of health risks.

“…7 Finally, we are witnessing a renaissance of turn of the century common law doctrines which set forth three key corporate duties, a rudimentary "three commandments" to manage risk: the duty to identify and know latent health and safety risks, the duty to warn workers and others likely to be exposed to such risks, and the duty to take timely and positive steps to reduce such risks. [8][9][10] The dimensions of these duties were relatively easy to discern at the turn of the century when accidents (e.g., boiler explosion) were of most concern; today the dimensions are much less definite, with chronic health risks (e.g., mutagenicity) now of central concern. Thus we have no clear guidelines as to how intensive and costly the corporate search to identify latent health risks should be, other than that it must at least be consistent with relevant regulatory requirements, if any, and it probably must go beyond regulatory requirements to avoid liability.…”