Kinsman v. Unocal Asbestos case: Discussion on the Privette Risk Doctrine (Continued)
Read the discussion in the Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, where the Privette discussion continues on the risk doctrine.
We concluded that the justifications for the peculiar risk doctrine did not apply to situations in which a contractor’s employee is injured and workers’ compensation is available. As we explained, the peculiar risk doctrine “seeks to ensure that injuries caused by contracted work will not go uncompensated, that the risk of loss for such injuries is spread to the person who contracted for and thus primarily benefited from the contracted work, and that adequate safety measures are taken to prevent injuries resulting from such work.
But in the case of on-the-job injury to an employee of an independent contractor, the workers’ compensation system of recovery regardless of fault achieves the identical purposes that underlie recovery under the doctrine of peculiar risk.
It ensures compensation for injury by providing swift and sure compensation to employees for any workplace injury; it spreads the risk created by the performance of dangerous work to those who contract for and thus benefit from such work, by including the cost of workers’ compensation insurance in the price for the contracted work; and it encourages industrial safety.”
Other helpful links:
Asbestos and lung cancer Asbestos and lung cancer
Mesothelioma attorney Mesothelioma attorney
Mesothelioma Lawyer Mesothelioma lawyer
Asbestos attorney Asbestos attorney