Previous Story
Tinian Dynasty seeks dismissal of $10M lawsuit
|
Posted on Aug 25 1999
Tinian Dynasty Hotel & Casino is seeking the dismissal of the $10 million lawsuit filed by a pregnant employee who had a miscarriage after slipping off the floor in the hotel’s kitchen area.
Anthony Long, attorney for Tinian Dynasty, said the claim for damages sought by Benselin John was covered by the Workers Compensation program, which he said is “the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy under the CNMI law.”
John was employed as a kitchen steward assigned at the hotel staff canteen. She was tasked with dish washing and cleaning the kitchen area.
In her complaint, John said that in May last year she twice informed her supervisors about the kitchen’s slippery and unsafe condition caused by leaking pipes under the sinks and defective floor drainage system.
John said she slipped off three times in the same area and blamed Tinian Dynasty for her fall.
The first two falls caused her to suffer leg pain and backache. The third fall, she said, caused her miscarriage.
“Defendant, intentionally with gross negligence, carelessly and improperly allowed the extreme and dangerously slippery unsafe conditions in the kitchen area to continue despite repeated and adequate warnings by its own employees,” John’s lawyer Joseph Arriola said.
Long, however, said John should have sought remedy through the company’s Worker Compensation policy.
Workers Compensation was established in 1989 by Public Law 6-33. It provides fixed compensation to injured employees “regardless of fault.”
“By awarding fixed compensation regardless of fault, the system does away with the uncertainty, delay and expense of common law actions,” the Tinian Dynasty’s motion for dismissal stated.
Long cited an earlier ruling by Supreme Court Presiding Judge Edward Manibusan, who dismissed a similar civil complaint filed by an employee against Pacific Development Inc. on grounds that the plaintiff’s claims for damages could be recovered through the company’s Workers Compensation policy.
Arriola said John’s case should become “an object lesson to the defendant and all other major employers who continually disregard the duty to maintain their workplace in a safe and prudent manner for protection of the employees and the public.” (MCM)
