Tort 2

y have different types of compensation schemes and laws for injured employees, but they are all intended to guard against the negative consequences of inability to earn an income caused by injury. Most industrialised states are exhibiting a renewed interest in their systems of personal injury litigation, which can be viewed as an inclination towards responding to personal injury through legal redress. For example, in the United Kingdom, there is the Workers Compensation Act, of which the entire Part 3 and several provisions of Part 1 are applicable to occupational safety and health (IIDB, 2014). Sections of Part 4 are applicable to safety and health decisions appeals. Therefore, workers’ compensation is a scheme where employers must either pay or provide insurance that will pay medical expenses and lost wages of workers who get injured while performing their jobs. This paper will show that Tom, Dick and Harry have different rights and compensation levels from a dry cleaner they worked for before being retired on health grounds after developing different diseases caused by a chemical they used at work.
Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, an employer is defined as anyone with one or more workers who work for them in an industry by either a hiring or apprenticeship contract which is implied, expressed, oral or written. On the other hand, a worker is defined from multiple perspectives, but the most suitable in the case of Tom, Dick and Harry would be anyone under apprenticeship or contract of service whether implied, expressed, oral or written. Tort law defines a duty of care as a legal obligation owed by an individual to others, whereby a reasonable standard of care must be exercised while performing acts that are potentially harmful (Bagshaw &amp. McBride, 2008). It also requires that the harm must be foreseeable. In the case of Squeakyclean, the company had known for 10 years that Blastoff, a chemical fluid used in the process of dry cleaning, causes a