Weldon v. Dunn

When reviewing the case file in question, I have found that one of the most important things to be taken into consideration when trying to decide injury cases is the fact of foreseeablilty.When Weldon seated the customer into the chair, she was well aware of the fact that the chair was not operating properly.In reference to the second allegation of the chair being to close to the manicure table, this as well is a foreseeable danger.When the inspector came to inspect the premises, the manicure table was in the same place and was not deemed unsafe.
The third issue has a touch more credibility.The fact that Ms. Weldon injured her back during the course of her workday needed to be researched more in depth.Upon being accepted into the school of cosmetology, Weldon received an'Admissions Information' pamphlet.In this reading, it clearly states the following:
Disadvantage of Cosmetology Careers
Cosmetology is a physically and mentally demanding profession that requires dexterity and patience. There is always the possibility of chemical allergies, foot, leg and back problems
After reading this statement, the possibility of any injury, including injury to the back, is imminently clear.This in turn disavows the third and final claim made by Weldon.
Thus in conclusion I feel that all responsibilities of the accused should be waved.The injury to the employee was brought forth not due to the negligence of the company, but in turn by herself.She read the Admissions Information before signing on for the job, releasing Dunn of being held responsible on all accounts of work related injuries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


I'm Harold

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out