In the state of Pennsylvania, can an employer hold an employee liable for any damages done on the job?
926154
That is true in any state.\n\nCoach
485746
You probably are a horrible employee, so no.\n\nYou can't sue an employer for your own incompetence.
1109108
Depends on the state and the number of employees the business has.  Some states require all businesses to have Workers Compensation (WC) coverage.  Other states exempt certain types of employers (i.e. agricultural) or employers who have a very small number of employees (perhaps 2 or 3 at the most).\n\nIf, in your state, you were required to carry WC but did not, some states require you to pay what WC would pay out of your own pocket.  Others would expose you to the risk of a lawsuit like I mention in the next paragraph.\n\nIf you were not required to carry WC (for one of the reasons mentioned above), your employee could sue you in court alleging negligence and seek damages just like an auto accident.  The employee would only recover if the jury found you at fault.  But the concept of "comparative negligence" does not apply in these cases.  If an employee is partly at fault for their own injury, they can still collect the full award without it being reduced because they were partly at fault.\n\nConfusing???
970653
they can't fire you for an on the job injury regardless of how long you have been there, not only would you get unemployment if they did, but you would have a very strong case for a wrongfull termination lawsuit, in addition you sould seek punitive damages for the injury itself.
1167673
Based on the information you have given, no. An employer can terminate most employees for almost any reason or for no reason at all (there are exceptions, of course.) But generally speaking, if a company violates its own written policies regarding disciplinary action, it can be held liable by the employee for wronful termination.
946558
Technically you would be in breach of contract however as nothing in writing there is very little employer could do. Employer would have to prove they had suffered financial loss and wouldn't really be worth the effort to contest
332879
payroll is an accounting liability
857707
look for labor law in your state, example is below\n\nhttp://www.labor.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/CE6C7FF3-8327-4D61-B853-B62F4C8C85CA/0/KentuckyWageandHourLaws.pdf
353919
First of all, both employer and employee pay into each states workers compensation benefits fund.  This is also called in some states, State Disability Insurance.  I do believe that in most states, the employer's portion is more than the employee's.  When you are injured on the job, it is the employer's responsibility to file an injury report and to assist the employee in filing an injury claim.  The employee will be paid benefits, based upon tables, an amount to assist them in meeting their basic expenses.  This amount, truly, is too low, and just might offset some minor expenses.  You should be coordinating your compensation/disability claim with your employer's human resources department.  But remember, in filing a claim, you are dealing with State Employees.  Not all of them are anxious to work, or to help you out.
18545
Possibly.  It depends on the city/state laws.  In some area once a pothole has been identified and reported, the DOT has some period of time to fix it, or put up a barrier or something like that.  After that, if they don't do anything about it, then yes, they would be liable.  Proving all of that would be difficult.
1009768
It depends on the state.   In general they are not guaranteed the same job, though some states require "comparable" work.  If there was an industrial injury, there is often light-duty work before the employee is ready for his or her old job.\n\nIn most cases, employment is at will, and the employer can re-assign or terminate employees at any time unless there is a contract to the contrary.
1100819
Depending on what state you are in they can. You might check with the labor board in whatever state you are in.
286309
Your employer can't interfere in your personal matters, however if some matters involve direct consequences to the company in that case they are allowed to a certain extent. If your contract of service does not provide for the things you mentioned then you are not bound to do that.
1156641
You can sue them. In most states workman's comp. is required. If they are really liable they will pay dearly--I would rather pay your bills than have an official find out I didn't have workman's comp.
754046
If you lose you will not collect.  Also will depend on why this is your "former" employer.  It will probably take place over the phone.
198823
it actually depends on the state you are in.  my personal advice would be to call a lawyer in that area.  This is much too serious of a matter to let a mistake cost him his rights to workmans comp.
1019069
Employee and public liabilty insurance is a requirement for the occupier of any business premises. It is there to ensure she can meet her liabilities if an accident occurs. Not alot of people know that occupiers of all premises are liable if someone is injured on their property, even residential owners. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (I think that's the year) makes it impossible for an occupier of business premises to attempt to exclude or limit their liability for injury sustained on the premises. Whereas an owner of residential premises can do so i.e by placing a warning sign Saying for example THE OCCUPIER ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY WHILE ON THE PREMISES. There are alot of technical points to note with this; particularly in relation to children, however, so be careful and always seek proper advice.\n\nAs an employer she also suffers from something called 'vicarious liability'. This basically means that she is liable for the acts of her employees while they are performing duties assosciated with their work. i.e say someone comes into the hairdressers who is a celebrity (david beckham for arguments sake) a trainee junior gets asked to dye his hair for him and he has an allergic reaction to the dye causing his head to swell to the point where he can no longer see, hence stopping him from playing football. As the employer she is jointly liable for any claim that david, or real madrid, may make. This is reasoned by the simple and logical point that the employer sees the sole benefit of the employees work and so should bear the burden of the responsibility for that work.\n\nAs far as I personally am aware one is only legally required to take out public liability insurance under U.K law although it has been several years since I completed my legal studies on this particular subject and I may be mistaken!! It is always advisable to take out the employees insurance though; as I have already stated the owner of the business is vicariously liable for the acts of the employee and she would be the first person any decent lawyer came after as 1- she is likely to be insured 2- she is likely to have more money than the actual offender in the event of no insurance. Depending on the type of business this is(sole trader, partnership, limited company) may mean that she could, potentially, lose her house and everything else of value in the event of a claim without it.\n\nHope that helps.