Case Study Question

     Case Study Responsibility for Accident On June 7, John Schmidt, one of the company’s employees, seriously injured his hand while pushing a large piece of wood through a table saw in the production shop. There is now a dispute over who is to blame for the accident, the company or the employee. The injured employee claims that he followed all the company’s safety procedures and that the company is at fault because it did not guarantee that the machine was as safe as possible for use. The company shop manager, David Donald, asserts that the machine was in safe condition, because if it hadn’t been, the shop foreman, Harry Hiller, would have informed him. The foreman, Harry Hiller, insists that the machine was maintained satisfactorily; he has produced the written maintenance records. The foreman also claims that prior to the accident the saw the employee “joking, laughing and goofing around” with his co-workers.  A co-worker supports the claim of the injured employee, insisting that despite regular maintenance on the table saw, it was not safe because the safety guard was poorly designed and didn’t function well. The co-worker claims that shop workers informed the foreman about the issues with the safety guard. A health and safety report determined and reported that the safety guard was poorly designed to protect operators in a number of circumstances. Step 1:  Review the TGS Critical Thinking   The framework (as delineated in the rubric) is based on FOUR key steps, each of which has several sub-steps.        Identify and clearly explain the main issue or problem under critical consideration.       Gather and analyze information to explore/investigate the issue or problem.      Consider and analyze other possible viewpoints, conclusions or decision/solutions to the issue or problem     Develop well-reasoned ideas, conclusions and/or decisions/solutions, checking them against relevant criteria and benchmarks Step 2:  Read the attached case, and analyze it using the framework provided by the TGS Critical Thinking Rubric.  Use the rubric’s four key steps as the format framework of a short position paper (details in the “Deliverables” section).  Employ the sub-steps within each of the four key steps to further direct your analysis.  Assignment Deliverables Write a short paper (no more than 4 pages/1,000 words, excluding the cover page and references) that critically analyses the ideas or position presented in the case reading. The major sections of your paper should include the following:      Introduction      Explanation of the Issue or Problem     Analysis of the Information     Analysis of Alternative Viewpoints, Conclusions or Solutions     Personal or Summarized Conclusions and Proposed Decisions     Conclusion Follow these guidelines:  Use the TGS Critical Thinking Rubric to guide your analysis.Use the TGS Written Communications Rubric to guide your writing.Draw in references from at least one reputable outside resource related to the topic to support your conclusions or proposed decisions.Employ APA Style 6ed for format and citation guidance.