BUSINESS ETHICS CASE ASSIGNMENT

Who Should Pay?

Imanda Mulia Rahman 361168

1. In your judgment, and from an ethical point of view, should Turner

Construction and/or B&C Steel pay for all part of the $1,428,000 (if part,
indicate which part)? Explain your view.

Turner Construction was contracting B&C Steel for the installation of bridge. Turner
Construction should restrict B&C Steel to comply with safety measures during the
installation of the bridge. Turners Construction should held partially responsible for
this case; for not reinforcing a proper code of ethics. Both Turners Construction
and B&C Steel are partly responsible for the accident that caused economic and
non-economic loss. Non-economic losses for Turner Construction and B&C Steel
includes distorted image due to accidents on installation site.

2. In your judgment, and from an ethical point of view, should Elliot be held
wholly or partially responsible for his injuries and left to shoulder all or
part of the $2,428,000 (if part, indicate which part)? Explain.

Elliot should be held partially responsible for his injuries, based on two arguments.
The first argument is about moral responsibility, which says that a person is
morally responsible only for those acts and their foreseen injurious effects of
deliberate acts or omissions. Omissions are knowingly and freely failing to perform
or to prevent. The second argument is about retributive justice, which says that its
concerned with the fair imposition of punishments on those who do not wrong.

3. In your judgment, is the Colorado workers compensation law to which

Turner Construction appealed fair? Explain your view.

Any company leasing or contracting out any part of the work to any lessee or
subcontractors, shall be construed to be an employer and shall be liable to pay
only compensation for injury resulting therefrom to said leases and subcontractors
and their employees. Colorado law

In terms of languages, Mabey leased the bridge to Turner Construction; Mabey was
a lessor (not a lessee) with respect to the component parts of the bridge. But,
when applied to the employment relationship, Mabey also a subcontractor to the
extent it assisted Turner Construction or B&C (through Elliot) in constructing and
launching the bridge or in other words provided the services of Elliot to Turner.
Hence, Turner is a statutory employer and thus required to pay only the economic
loses, which is $28,000. Because employee's (Elliot) services are necessary and
routine to the employer's (Turner Construction/B & C) regular business. Absent of
Elliot's expertise and assistance, Turner Construction would have had to hire its
own employee to study the bridge's design and assembly and advise and oversee
its construction and launch. So, based on the arguments above, the Colorado
workers compensation law is fair.