Under the decision in this case, when does a duty arise for the defendant Metro-North to protect its employees?
What does the court suggest that Metro-North should have done in this case that would have satisfied the duty?
May railroad workers invoke the Federal Employers' Liability Act to sue their employers for emotional distress due to asbestos, or some other disease-causing carcinogen, exposure if it has not made them ill? Why or why not?
What role do situational business ethics and moral relativism play in the employee's personal circumstances and that of Metro-North's ethical conduct in this case?
Provide a detailed summary of what steps the employer could have or should have taken to mitigate the situation.
What affect could this case have on your worksite?