Case Study: SeaWorld of Florida v. Perez
Employers have the duty and responsibility of ensuring their employees’ safety and those who use their premises and workplaces since they are obligated by law to undertake responsibilities of protecting life, liberty, and safety in the event of a workplace accident. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the employer must comply with the regulation on the safety and protection of the employee’s life and well-being at workplaces to ensure that they are not endangered (Mills et al., 2005). Similarly, under the clause, the employee must inform the employer of any potential harm in the workplace that prompts the employer to act according to the law’s guidelines. SeaWorld of Florida v. Perez case tries to determine whether there was a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Walsh, 2015). Evidence was presented in support of the claim of negligence and violation of the clause to present the violation claim that led to the death of Dawn Brancheau.
Though the ruling found violations of the third and fourth prerequisites, it was important to present the claims according to the stipulation and regulations to claim a violation of the General Duty Clause. Jurisprudence was set to highlight that the workplace’s activity or condition presented a threat to the employer (Mills et al., 2005). The employer was aware of the threat of the killer whale Tilikum to the extent of putting measures to prevent the threats. However, the employer failed to restrict or put measures in handling the other whales, which they also knew they had similar threats to the employees and visitors. From the actions taken to prevent the killer whale’s harm, the employer demonstrates that they had a significant obligation and ability to prevent the other whales from causing harm. Through their threat, they caused the death of the trainer (Walsh, 2015). Through the evidence provided, it was evident that the employer violated the General Duty Clause since they knew the activity caused a threat. It was likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
The OSHA ensures a safe and healthy working environment by setting and enforcing standards that the employer is obligated to follow and comply with under the General Duty Clause. To ensure that these guidelines are complied with and implemented in the workplace, they undertake random inspections and check on the employers’ abatement to the threats that their workplaces have to the employers (“Law and Regulations,” n.d.). Similarly, it is important to undertake training and education to the employees regarding their safety measures to ensure that they understand what they are supposed to do in the workplace.
Therefore SeaWorld was obligated to undertake various abatement strategies to prevent the threat in their workplace. The successful implementation of the abatement for the killer Tilikum whale by the management shows that they could implement the same measures to the other whales and abate the hazard. However, they did not implement the abatement to the other whales and downplayed their employees’ safety, resulting in one trainer’s death. It is through the failure to implement the abatement to the other whales that I agree with the court’s ruling of finding them in violation of the General Duty Clause since they had knowledge that the activity presented a threat to the trainers and failed to abate the hazard leading to the death of the trainer.
References
Law and Regulations| Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs#:~:text=OSHA%20enforces%20its%20regulations%20and,fatality%2C%20or%20a%20worker%20complaint.
Mills, A. C., Chillock, C. A., Edelman, H., & Mills, S. E. (2005). OSHA safety requirements and the general duty clause. Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, NJ: 1995), 26(3 Suppl), 14-19.
Walsh, D. J. (2015). Employment law for human resource practice. Nelson Education.