by Doug Anderson

Graphics and Commercial Art

Valley Printing does a lot of work in the binding of books. The equipment used for this type of work is notorious for breaking down, because of the large number of moving parts. Because the breakdowns are so frequent, sometimes the safety guards are left off of the machines after the repairs are completed so that the next time the machine breaks down it will be quicker to repair.

Sue works on a machine that is missing a safety guard and is injured by the machine. Sue's arm is broken and she must miss work for six weeks. Valley Printing offers to pay Sue full salary during her recovery and give her a job when she is ready to work again.

After almost six weeks Sue feels that she is ready to come back to work. She is hired back at her old job and pay, but the same conditions still exist of the missing safety guard. After talking to a few of the other employees, Sue decides that she will sue Valley Printing for their negligence.

Questions:

Is Sue justified in her actions?

Was Valley Printing justified in the way they treated Sue?

Did Sue take advantage of her employer?

Did Valley Printing take advantage of an employee?

Is it ethical to ask employees to use equipment with existing safety hazards?