Can My Friend's Employer Successfully Inoculate Themselves Against a Future Laptop-Caused Injury?

June 21, 2004 3:44 AM

A friend of mine was offered a flat screen at his place of work to use in conjunction with his laptop computer. He declined because he is quite happy to use his laptop, and his desk space is at a premium. Later, he was given a piece of paper to sign waiving all rights to sue the company for an injury that might occur as a result of using his laptop. Would such a document actually carry any legal authority?

Some more information:

He doesn't want to sign it. Not because he'd like to sue his company in the event of injury - in fact if anything he feels insulted by the idea that he might (it's a small company and he's worked there since its formation). His objection is grounded in what he says as the principle of the matter: that he shouldn't have to relinquish working rights because he doesn't want a flat screen monitor to use with his laptop, and he and I are curious about the legality of their request.

Ah yes - we're talking about the UK, too.

posted by nthdegx to Law & Government (15 answers total)

It makes perfect sense to me. A good ergonomic work environment can reduce the risk of a lot of injuries. Working on laptops regularly for prolonged periods of time greatly increases those risks; the behaviour of the company makes perfect sense. The employee should either just accept the flatscreen or sign the waiver. No need to be offended, there's nothing wrong with covering your ass if the employee in question wants to put themself at risk.

I'm not familiar with the UK law in this matter, but I suspect such a waiver would be perfectly legal and binding.
posted by fvw at 3:59 AM on June 21, 2004

Couldn't he accept the flatscreen and then store it under his desk?
posted by pieoverdone at 4:04 AM on June 21, 2004

Response by poster: All great, but my question is about the legality of signing a piece of paper that relinquishes fairly basic rights. I can accept his point of view can be seen as bloody-minded, but I'd rather not get into the rightness or wrongness of his viewpoint and the general soft complexity of the issue.

I'd rather not quote the paper verbatim but suffice to say it was a very brief, seeminly hastily written letter seeking to remove reponsibility for "any future health and safety issue occurring from the non-use" of the flatscreen.

I'm aware it's a long-shot that anyone will know much about this area of UK law - but by the same token, I'm not seeking legal advice, just some idea.
posted by nthdegx at 4:21 AM on June 21, 2004

I don't know what the legality is but I have to agree with FVW.

As a UK resident I understand that law requires employers to provide safe facilities for its staff. A flatscreen monitor at the appropriate height would be safer than craning down to a laptop. Your friend should be happy that his/her employer actually follows the rules and cares about the health of its staff.

If your friend chooses not to take this sensible advice, I can totally understand why the employer would want to protect itself with the document. I don't think your friend's claims would carry much weight if they ended up in court. They were given the opportunity for safer working conditions and they deliberately turned them down.
posted by skylar at 4:31 AM on June 21, 2004

You might recommend that he change the terms of the document--instead of framing things in terms of legal liability, why doesn't he just agree to sign a document that says "You offered me a flatscreen, for ergonomic purposes, and I willingly opted not to take advantage of your offer."

Theoretically, that's better for both parties, since it's more factually accurate, and doesn't presume bad things happening on either side. The company would actually have a document that didn't only apply in a court of law, but potentially with an insurer, etc., and your friend doesn't basically have to sign a document pledging not to be a jerk (annd accept the implication that they're worried he might be).
posted by LairBob at 4:47 AM on June 21, 2004

Response by poster: Once more: would such a document actually carry any legal authority?

Skylar, most of your judgements are off base because they ignore all sorts of aspects of the situation which I have left out because they don't relate to my actual question which regards the legality. Had I been asking for advice on a course of action I might have written 3000 words. He hasn't been given sensible advice on flatscreen monitors - he was simply asked if he wanted one with no reason cited and no explanation of the reasons. He has said if he had been told he had to have one he wouldn't have had any arguments. However, I don't want to discuss the soft complexity of the issue for this reason - although you are free to impy my friend is an idiot without knowing the full facts if you so desire.

My question is more to do with documents being legally binding simply because they are written and have a signature on them. My gut instinct is that this is not the case when such a document seems to conflict with basic rights. I'm interested in this issue generally, and clearly as it relates to health and safety in the workplace.
posted by nthdegx at 5:33 AM on June 21, 2004

Perhaps you're not getting the answer you seek because your friend sounds like a complete ass-ache and the question is so quibbling that people are trying to provide alternate solutions under which the problem would go away. If there were a problem here to begin with.
posted by yerfatma at 6:10 AM on June 21, 2004

I am really confused as how this relates to "basic rights" of your friend. Do you mean to claim that he has the right to refuse a safer work environment, and later sue his employer if such a refusal leads to his injury? His employer certainly has the basic right to fire him for being an idiot.

Anyway, regardless of if the agreement serves as a "waiver of the right to sue", it certainly documents that he was on notice of the situation and chose to proceed accordingly.
posted by reverendX at 6:20 AM on June 21, 2004

Best answer: My question is more to do with documents being legally binding simply because they are written and have a signature on them.

If what you are talking about is admissability and likelihood that such a contract would stand up in court, I'd advise the comapny your friend works for to take the following course of action:

a) have a lawyer for the company read it to him.
b) have his lawyer review it with him and negotiate any changes in language with the company
c) have all parties present at signing, in addition to two other neutral witnesses, one of which is a notary public.
d) have all 5 - lawyer for company, lawyer for friend, friend, notary, and witness - sign in blood.

Or your friend could just sign the damn thing and get on with his life. If the letter says "I agree not to sue if I get injured from not using a monitor that was offered to me by the company" - then what's the harm? You're (sorry, your friend is not) not waiving your "basic" rights, you're waiving the right to so the company for not providing you with a safer working environment after you refused to use safer equipment.

More generally, and more than a bit unrelated to the matter at hand, can signing a piece of paper waiving your basic rights hold up in court? It depends. On many things. To name a few:

1) The stregnth of the language of the document. Does it use "in perpetuity", "unreserved", and other language like that?
2) The relative skill of either lawyer involved
3) The disposition of the judge re: contract and constitutional law
4) Your relative level of understanding of the document, or rather what can be proven of that understanding, at the time you signed.
5) Precedent.

In general, the law tends to favor the little guy, in that very often contracts are deemed unfair and thrown out, despite very strong language and careful reservation clauses. However the big guy can more than make up for this advantage by making tighter contracts and hiring better lawyers than the little guy could ever dream of.

My advice? You will never beat a corporation. The sooner you allow your will to be broken and submit, the better. Sign. [/snark]

It occurs to me that if ever I were to become a lawyer, I would start www.askalawyer.com and charge $5 to give a 2-paragraph answer to any legal question and become a gazillionaire in 1 year. It seems like more than half the questions asked here are for legal advice. My father is a lawyer, and he always says, "Sure I'll give you free legal advice, but you get what you pay for." I've heard some techies on these boards bemoan having to do tech support for their entire family. Add money and life and death and taxes into that question and you may begin to understand the horrors of being the lawyer in the family.
posted by ChasFile at 6:50 AM on June 21, 2004

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

In the US, no, this document wouldn't have the legal force that you might expect. That is, it can't prevent you from suing. That doesn't mean that the document mightn't be pretty persuasive that your friend was aware of the health complications for using his laptop and, thus, badly hurt his case. But YMMV in the UK.

In the US, you can sign a hundred documents agreeing not to sue, and you can still sue. Like I said, though, it won't help your chances at winning. These sorts of waivers are really mostly at the behest of insurance companies.

ChasFile: For that reason, I've always thought it very unseemly to ask any relative or friend for medical or legal advice (that is, if they're a doctor or a lawyer). One can imagine how incessant such bothering must be for them.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:55 AM on June 21, 2004

In the U.S., a work-related injury would be covered by workers comp. Workers comp is a no-fault insurance mechanism of a sort - essentially, employers pay medical and disability payments for work-related injuries or illensses that occur in the course and scope of employment, and this in turn becomes the "exclusive remedy" for work-related injuries - employees lose the right to sue. Of course, nothing is perfectly black & white, so employees still sue for things like bad faith, willful intent, etc. And employers deny claims in grey areas - and repetitive stress or carpal tunnel can be a grey area as to whether it happened at work or not - so legal challenges still can succeed in some cases.

I'm not sure about the workers comp laws in Great Britain, but I would suspect that this issue would fall within their purview and that they outline some rights and responsibilities for both sides. Your friend may want to find out if there are workers comp statutes that would cover him should he develop an injury. While workers comp is governed by 50 different state laws in the U.S., I don't think that signing away your rights would hold up anywhere here. (Although people have indeed been denied workers comp benefits for egregious flouting of safety standards or company rules, like drinking on the job.)
posted by madamjujujive at 9:00 AM on June 21, 2004

In the US with health workers it's standard practice to give free hepatitis vaccinations, if you choose to decline the vaccination then you have to sign something saying you declined knowing the risks etc. I would assume this at least stands up in court enough to cover the insurance companies ass, as it's common to every company i've worked for.

I also don't know what basic right you mean, to me it sounds nice of that company. I mean, free will and all that, but I'm an american so I might have different views on "basic rights".
posted by rhyax at 12:23 PM on June 21, 2004

i think you're confusing right to sue over anything, with right to sue because he doesn't have a flat screen. he's not giving up the right to sue over anything (to the extent that it is a right), even if signing this does give up his right to sue over not having a flat screen.

seems like there's been a breakdown in communication that needs sorting out. someone should have explained why the screen was a good idea first. but that's not a reason to object to signing the waiver.

even better, find a way to save face and accept (and use) the screen.
posted by andrew cooke at 12:51 PM on June 21, 2004

Response by poster: Thanks, guys. He *is* being a bit of an ass-ache, admittedly, but then his company does seem to have mishandled it, too. However, he asked me about the legality of the letter and, not having clue but a small hunch I figured i'd it ask here, despite it being a long shot.
posted by nthdegx at 3:39 PM on June 21, 2004

In Australia (FWIW) this document would have little or no weight. The employer has a duty of care to provide a safe workplace and it sounds like they are trying to avoid that duty of care by not requiring employees to use appropriate equipment to ensure a safe workplace. They should put the screen on his desk and say "use this". On the other hand, the employee also has a duty of care to act in a safe manner. This is really no different to an employee who refuses to wear safety goggles in an industrial setting - the employer has an obligation to provide them and the employee has an obligation to wear them and both are risking exposure if they fail to do so.

The document he has been asked to sign would have little weight because it is not possible to sign away either legal rights or legal obligations and any contract doing so would be considered of limited validity. In Australia, as with most countries as I understand it, asking someone to waive their rights to access to the court system is considered a denial of natural justice.
posted by dg at 3:44 PM on June 21, 2004