Australian Workplace Law

Australian Workplace Law

Roudy Construction has received a claim from one of their employee. The employee was injured recently at a building worksite controlled by Highrise Ltd. The employee was working there at Roudy's request. Apparently, due to rain, the worksite surface was slippery and the employee fell, breaking his legs. Roudy consider it is Highrise's responsibility to compensate the employee. The governmental entities supposed that the manufacturers were liable on ideas of strict product liability, negligence and fraud for damages caused by lead decorate, should be needed to abate the public nuisance conceived by lead paint, and should be enjoined and organised to pay restitution, disgorge earnings and pay civil punishments due to their unjust business practices considering lead paint..1

The injured employee argued that there was still lead in the paints supplied by the Roudy Construction although it the levels may have been low. The injured employee argued that the paint still posed a threat to people. The injured employee' specific allegations of false representations were from long ago and related to Roudy Construction efforts to avoid a ban on lead paint. Roudy Construction had known about the dangers of lead for nearly a century but had engaged in a concerted effort to hide the dangers of Lead from the government and the public. The Roudy Construction had promoted lead paint for many years for interior use and claimed that it was safe. 2The Roudy Construction demurred the case on several occasions and disputed that they had committed fraud in the sale and advertisement of their paint products. The injured employee claimed that the use of these paints in many building left people at risk. Defendant's efforts to avoid regulation and to combat the move to ban lead paint had failed by 1978, 6so the misrepresentations that fueled that effort could not form a basis for an unbarred fraud cause of action. Plaintiffs could not have justifiably relied on any post-1978 representations that lead paint was protected for central use, was not dicey or venomous or should not be regulated or banned. There were three amended complaints made by the injured employee. Roudy Construction claimed that the action was time-barred and plaintiff argued that it was not because Roudy Construction and continued to misrepresent the dangers of lead paint to the present day.

The summary judgment was upheld because A decision made on the basis of statements and evidence presented for the record without a trial. It is utilised when there is no argument as to the details of the case, and one party is entitled to judgment as a issue of law. Since a cause of activity accrues when the components of the origin of action, including damage, happen (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra, supra, 25 Cal.4th 809, 815), 3the appreciable and actual harm that results in accrual must be harm of the specific type that is recoverable as damages on that type of cause of action. It was further ruled that the Roudy Construction ...