Horrible decision stating that WC is the only rememdy for an employee of a contractor at a property owners premises. Often the contractor employees are injured due to negligence of the property owner and the causation has nothing to do with the work or the location of the work of the contractor. WC provides substinance but does not compensate. Taking the legal remedy from the contractor employee smells of bipartism as opposed to blind justice. Hopefully the legislature will replace a just and due remedy to the contractor employee. The property owner has common law defenses already in place. They are not the employer and often shift the liability via contract to the subcontractor anyway. This should not be allowed as well absent no causal relation by the employee or the contractor.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Horrible decision stating that WC is the only rememdy for an employee of a contractor at a property owners premises. Often the contractor employees are injured due to negligence of the property owner and the causation has nothing to do with the work or the location of the work of the contractor. WC provides substinance but does not compensate. Taking the legal remedy from the contractor employee smells of bipartism as opposed to blind justice. Hopefully the legislature will replace a just and due remedy to the contractor employee. The property owner has common law defenses already in place. They are not the employer and often shift the liability via contract to the subcontractor anyway. This should not be allowed as well absent no causal relation by the employee or the contractor.