The Caribbean Steel company article is a legal case in which the plaintiff, who was an employee of a limited liability firm, is the first defendant and claims negligent damages from both the first and second defendants. The first defendant is a steel processing company, and the second is a businesswoman who owned a vehicle that the plaintiff was loading with steel on the day of the accident. The plaintiff claims that the first defendant was negligent in several ways, including failing to provide a safe work environment, failing to ensure that bundles of steel contained equal lengths of steel, binding steel in bundles of unequal lengths for mechanical loading, and conducting workplace operations carelessly and without regard for the workers. The plaintiff was injured as a result of an accident while aiding with the loading of steel bars onto the first defendant's truck. A spare wheel rim and tyre landed on the plaintiff's right foot during the loading process, inflicting serious injuries. At the start of the trial, the first defendant requested that the defense be altered to include new negligence charges against the plaintiff. The court allowed the application, ruling that the requested alteration did not affect any cause of action and may be made at this late stage without causing the plaintiff any harm. Mr. Wilson James, the driver of the first defendant's truck, is the lone witness called by the first defendant. The court determined that the accident occurred in the way indicated by the plaintiff and Mr. Winford Wright, the crane driver, on a balance of probability. Mr. Wilton James' claim that the plaintiff was the cause of his own misfortune was rejected by the court, and the first defendant was held to be at fault for the disaster. A ruptured plantar fascia and a severe tarsometatarsal joint strain were suffered by the plaintiff. He was initially placed on crutches, and later a plaster of Paris cast was applied below the knee. While the plaintiff's cast was removed after three weeks, he still has discomfort in his foot and from his ankle to his hip. He has to use a crutch to climb stairs and a stick to walk around the house. He has trouble riding his bicycle and is unable to conduct housekeeping or play with his grandchildren. Furthermore, he used to earn additional money as a mason but is no longer able to do so, and he is left with a lifelong disability assessed as 25% impairment of the foot, 18% impairment of the lower extremities, or 7% of the entire person. Considering pain and suffering and loss of amenities, the judge analyzed various situations before deciding that a $425,000 award would be acceptable. About the plaintiff's labor-market disadvantage, the judge finally determined that it would be appropriate to award the plaintiff $200,000 under this area.

Why is this case unethical?