## Forcing employers to publish the known risks for a given position, and keep those published risks up to date:
> [FIXME]: Obviously the employer cannot be made liable for all damages incurred while an employee works. But "causally due to the nature of the task" isn't a clear enough principle for the limitation of liability.
Workplaces should clearly publish risks for positions in detail. Any damages incurred while carrying out employment, which are causally due to the nature of the task of employment, which aren't listed among the published risks are grounds for legal action.
> [FIXME, EXPERIMENTAL]: This section is very difficult to get right. We want to ensure that employers outlay capital on safety equipment and infrastructure to ameliorate the known risks for the tasks they assign. But we also don't want to mandate that employers must use the absolute most cutting edge method for ameliorating any known risk. The question is, by what means shall we determine when "sufficient" effort/capital outlay has been made to free the employer from liability.
> [IDEA]: One compromise on this mechanism could be to make employers only liable for known risks that accompany the task which arise from the environment/infrastructure in which the task is carried out; and not those which arise from the performance of the task? This makes it the employer's responsibility to ensure the workplace/environment itself is safe, but leaves the responsibility for safety when carrying out the tasks to the employee.
On the basis of the published list of risks, the employees filling a position may sue for equitable relief in the form of an injunction against the employer to provide adequate safety, if syuch safety is not provided. this suit does not reward compensation. it is an equitable remedy.
