NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Paula Wright, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Beverly Fabrics Inc. , Defendant and Appellant. The title of the case is Paula Wright against Beverly Fabrics Inc. The case is related to the sphere of employment. The core of the case is the following: Paula Wright sues her employer, Beverly Fabric Inc. , for the injury of her back, which she acquired through the accident, which had taken place at Beverly Fabric Inc. store, where Wright worked at the time.
The accident happened when she was in the store, trying to catch the falling shelf. The consequence of the accident was Wright's back injury, for which she wanted to have financial compensation, relying on the fact, that she had been engaged into the voluntary social activity, which was the result of her employment. The court granted Wright with compensation, equal to around $ 500, 000. Wright was reported to be one of the excellent employees in Beverly Fabric Inc. She had been working in this company since 1991 and she had displayed herself as a responsible worker, who had never been disciplined.
She was on her day off when the accident occurred, having come to the store to sign a condolence card and grant some finances for the coworkers, who had lost their family members. While standing and speaking to her coworkers in the store, without any customers nearby, she saw the shelf moving, and understanding the shelf was collapsing, she instinctively moved to grasp and support it. She immediately felt sharp pain in her back. She has sued Beverly Fabric Inc.
for negligence. The defendant's motion for nonsuit was rejected by the trial court, and the plaintiff was granted financial compensation. As Beverly Fabric Inc. went to the Court of Appeals for the revision of the case, the defendant tried to persuade the judge, that the trial court had erred in failing to enter the order for the nonsuit, as well as to connect the case with social activity, while according to the defendant's opinion, the case had to be related to the worker's compensation exclusive remedy rule. As Wright was injured not at the time she was signing the condolence card, but at the time she was protecting employer's property, the Court of Appeals found the trial court had erred in connecting the case with the voluntary social activity, and reversed it for the reconsideration in the light of the worker's compensation exclusive remedy rule. This decision is supported by me for the following reasons: first of all, the decision was based on the precedents, in which California courts had stated that any worker's attempt to save the employer's property in emergency situations, was under worker's compensation laws; second, Wright was on her day-off, and no one asked her to come to the store it was her initiative; the accident took place not during her socializing, this is why she had no basis for suing Beverly Fabric Inc.
under the voluntary social actions legislation. From the viewpoint of Beverly Fabric Inc. the decision was beneficial they argued there was no substantial evidence that Wright had injured her back during socializing, as well as there had been no tradition of signing condolence cards in the store, thus as 'any good deeds are usually punished', the defendant supposed the trial court had erred in giving due instructions to the jury in relation to the evidence present. From the viewpoint of Wright, the compensation which she gets as a result of this decision may not cover the expenses of curing her injury, and she will probably have to change her employment; it may also look that the law does not defend the rights of employees and their injuries are not compensated in the due course. However, in suing the employee under worker's compensation exclusive rule, Wright would gain more benefits, and she had to rely on this part of legislation. It is understandable, that p. 3600 could be interpreted in two different ways, and in such case the plaintiff seems to have no perspective for defending his rights and demanding due compensation; but on the other hand, in this very case the circumstances themselves worked for the employer, and accounting it was Wright's day off and it was nothing more than an action which any responsible worker would do in similar situation, the decision was done not in Wright's favor.
Free research essays on topics related to: compensation, court of appeals, wright, beverly, trial court
Research essay sample on Court Of Appeals Trial Court
