The stakes were high for Gene Elliot, whose on-the-job injuries were estimated to be serious enough to merit at least a $2.4 million settlement. But who should pay for his injuries: Turner Construction or B&C Steel? Or should Elliot be forced to pay for at least part of his injuries be-cause of his own carelessness? Gene Elliot worked for Mabey Bridge and Shore, a small business that rented temporary steel pedestrian foot bridges to other companies. The temporary bridges had to be put together by the renter, and Elliot’s job was to go to the site where the steel bridge was going to be installed, show the renter how to bolt the bridge sections together and how to install the bridge over a river or waterway, and inspect the bridge to make sure it was done properly and according to Mabey Bridge’s high standards. Elliot was a devoted hard worker who strove to do everything possible to ensure that a bridge installation was successful and ac-cording to Mabey Bridge’s standards. Turner Construction was a general contractor hired to build Invesco Field at the Mile High Stadium in Denver, Col-orado. Part of the job involved installing a temporary pedes-trian bridge over the Platte River near the stadium. Turner Construction subcontracted (hired) B&C Steel to build and install the bridge, which Turner Construction would pay for. B&C Steel was a small company that specialized in put-ting together and installing steel structures like those Mabey Bridge rented out. B&C Steel would pick up the bridge, put it together, and install it for Turner Construction. Turner Construction rented the long steel bridge from Mabey Bridge. Mabey Bridge agreed that the rental included the services of Gene Elliot, who would be loaned to Turner Construction to instruct and inspect the bridge assembly and installation. B&C Steel’s workers picked up the bridge sections from Mabey Bridge’s warehouse and drove them to the river, but did not unload the bridge sec-tions where they had to be assembled. B&C Steel then had to move the sections to the correct site, but did not plan for the fence, guardrails, and trolley tracks that were in the way and later had to work around these obstructions. B&C Steel began bolting the bridge sections together. When Elliot inspected the job, he found the bridge had been bolted together upside down. Elliot made B&C Steel do the job over, while he climbed up and down and over the bridge, continuously checking and making sure that all the bolts were tight and all the pieces were in the right place so that the installation would be a success. When the bridge was finished, B&C Steel workers used a truck to move the long steel structure to the edge of the river. Unfortunately, B&C Steel had not adequately checked the route and their truck hit a low-hanging power line, which sparked and started a fire. The fire department arrived and put out the fire. Afterwards, the installation job continued.
B&C Steel workers set up a crane on the other side of the river near a retaining wall, and a strong nylon strap was strung from the crane, over the water, and tied to one end of the bridge, which was set on rollers. The B&C Steel crane would lift and pull the bridge over the river to its side, while workers on the other side of the river pushed on their end of the bridge. The work began, and as the pulling crane held the bridge suspended in the air about a quarter of the way over the river, Elliot noticed that the retaining wall which was supporting the crane on the other side of the river was beginning to collapse, causing the crane to begin to tip sideways. The B&C Steel crane operator on the other side began to untie the strap hold-ing the bridge. Concerned that once the strap was cut the bridge would fall into the river and the installation would end in failure, Elliot ran up on the bridge and gave the standard emergency OSHA all-stop signal that all con-struction workers know means not to move anything. But the bridge, still attached to the crane, somehow moved, and Elliot fell, sustaining numerous pelvic injuries and a severed urethra (the tube that carries urine). The cause of the movement was never established. Elliot sued Turner Construction and B&C Steel for negligence resulting in economic losses of $28,000, non-economic injuries of $1,200,000, and permanent impair-ment of $1,200,000. These figures were established by a qualified expert in the field of worker injuries and were not seriously contested. Turner Construction, however, denied its responsi-bility. It claimed that Turner was Elliot’s temporary em-ployer and workers’ compensation law required employers to pay only the economic losses, here only $28,000, suf-fered by their employees. Turner Construction pointed to the law, which stated: “Any company leasing or contract-ing out any part of the work to any lessee or subcontractor, shall be construed to be an employer and shall be liable to pay [only] compensation for injury resulting therefrom to said lessees and subcontractors and their employees.” Turner Construction claimed that Mabey Bridge was a subcontractor to Turner to the extent that it provided the services of Elliot to Turner, so Turner should be con-strued to be Elliot’s temporary employer. Moreover, Col-orado’s workers’ compensation law, which was designed to ensure that employers always paid for worker injuries “grants an injured employee compensation from the em-ployer without regard to negligence and, in return, the responsible employer is granted immunity from common law negligence liability.” B&C Steel claimed that it, too, was not responsible, because according to the law a company is not responsible for negligence when an injury is not “reasonably foresee-able” to the company. B&C Steel contended that a rea-sonable person could not have anticipated that placing the crane near to the retaining wall and subsequently attempt-ing to remove the nylon strap holding up the bridge might end by prompting someone to get on the bridge in an at-tempt to save it from falling into the river. On the other hand, B&C Steel claimed, since “Elliot chose to remove himself from a secure and safe position and placed himself in one that he understood was potentially unsafe,” Elliot was himself responsible for his injuries. Elliot claimed that he was not really Turner Con-struction’s employee, since he was working for Mabey Bridge. He also argued that B&C Steel had shown a pattern of negligence from the time that the bridge was received until the time that it was installed. B&C Steel and its employees, he said, were unprepared for the project and negligently failed to adequately plan for it, as shown by the sequence of events leading up to his injury. B&C Steel, therefore, did not exercise the degree of care that a reasonably careful person should have exercised in similar circumstances and so was liable to him for his injuries. He himself was not responsible, Elliot said, because a good, devoted employee would try his best to ensure that the bridge installation did not end in failure, and he would have been perfectly safe if the standard OSHA all-stop signal had been followed by B&C Steel employees, as he had a right to expect it to be.
In your judgment, and from an ethical point of view, should Turner Construction and/or B&C steel pay for all or part of the $2,428,000 (if part, indicate which part)? Explain your view.
In your judgment, and from an ethical point of view, should Elliot be held wholly or partially responsible for his injuries and left to shoulder all or part of the $2,428,000 cost of his injuries (if part, indicate which part)? Explain.
In your judgment, is the Colorado worker's compensation law to which Turner Construction appealed fair? Explain your view.