Cop kills girls while not paying attention while driving...files for worker's comp

[MililaniBuckeye]

If you were attacked while sitting in your cubicle working and you broke your hand while killing your attacker, then your hand injury could be comp eligible.

You had a valid reason for breaking your hand...self-defense. The cop had no valid reason for breaking his legs...although he was responding to an incident scene per his duty responsibilities, the manner is which he did so was negligent and thus he should be denied worker's comp.

 

[Gatorubet]

You had a valid reason for breaking your hand...self-defense. The cop had no valid reason for breaking his legs...although he was responding to an incident scene per his duty responsibilities, the manner is which he did so was negligent and thus he should be denied worker's comp.

I can type about how comp is not negligence based, but I can't make you agree with it.

 

[Wingate1217]

Gator,

I will not debate the merits of worker's comp law as i think you have covered that quite throughly. Instead I will mention the gall of this guy to even file in the first place is beyond me. There used to be a time when something like this would never happen because a person's sense of honor, deciency, and accountability would "kick-in." Now is the time of no accountability and no shame......:(

 

[Bucklion]

I hope the family sues for damages to take away his newfound "wealth". Nothing like profiting from killing 2 children.

 

[BayBuck]

Gator,

I will not debate the merits of worker's comp law as i think you have covered that quite throughly. Instead I will mention the gall of this guy to even file in the first place is beyond me. There used to be a time when something like this would never happen because a person's sense of honor, deciency, and accountability would "kick-in." Now is the time of no accountability and no shame......:(

I wonder how long ago that time was...? My mom's car got hit by a cop near campus trying to speed around her on a one-lane street near campus in the 1960's, both drivers (my mom and the cop) sustained injuries and the CPD tied her up in court for years for his negligence. CPD eventually won, of course.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I can type about how comp is not negligence based, but I can't make you agree with it.

Then comp is totally fucked up...like about 70% of the laws in this country. Your earlier quote about "it's about the law, not about justice" rings all too true...

 

[Gatorubet]

I hope the family sues for damages to take away his newfound "wealth". Nothing like profiting from killing 2 children.

Comp is a right, like disability insurance, if that is provided. If you have a life insurance policy more than two years old, and are killed by a swat team because you went postal and killed 10 people at church, your family will still collect on your insurance. The fact that you killed some people - in a church - has nothing to do with it. You have a contractual right to something and you are entitled to have that contract honored. Same for comp. If he was injured he has a right to collect comp. His injuring others has nothing to do with his right to comp. His collecting comp will not deny the family of the dead girls any rights they have against the trooper or his employer.

Again, if he collects anything it will be because he is partially or totally disabled, either temporarily or permanently. If he collects anything it will be according to a formula.

But he only gets anything if he is disabled and cannot work as a cop again making what he made. Guess what - he is likely not unemployable, and can be a dispatcher or a security guard supervisor. And some of those jobs he can still do pay well. So if he can earn the same 40K doing something else, he gets nothing. If he can make 35K in another job, he gets 2/3rds of 5K (the 40 he did make versus the 35 he now makes) a year in comp , or $3,333.33 a year. That is not a windfall. And the employer does not have to settle with him in a lump sum, but can give him his little checks for the next twenty years, which sentences him to never making more than he made the day he got hurt.

It is not a money making deal, and the quote about hundreds of thousands of dollars makes no sense unless he is completely unable to work.

This is a story that is only a big deal if the preposterous prediction of the plaintiff lawyer is right....and he is paid to demonize the cop and get sympathy for his client, so of course he is making a worst case scenario.

And so you all know, the doctrine of respondeat superior says that the family of the deceased girls will recover regardless of whether the cop is poor or not. Which is a good thing, because the cop could file a chapter 7 and get rid of his individual debt for that liability for $1500 bucks in fees and costs with a bankruptcy attorney.

 

[Bucklion]

Comp is a right, like disability insurance, if that is provided. If you have a life insurance policy more than two years old, and are killed by a swat team because you went postal and killed 10 people at church, your family will still collect on your insurance. The fact that you killed some people - in a church - has nothing to do with it. You have a contractual right to something and you are entitled to have that contract honored. Same for comp. If he was injured he has a right to collect comp. His injuring others has nothing to do with his right to comp. His collecting comp will not deny the family of the dead girls any rights they have against the trooper or his employer.

Again, if he collects anything it will be because he is partially or totally disabled, either temporarily or permanently. If he collects anything it will be according to a formula.

But he only gets anything if he is disabled and cannot work as a cop again making what he made. Guess what - he is likely not unemployable, and can be a dispatcher or a security guard supervisor. And some of those jobs he can still do pay well. So if he can earn the same 40K doing something else, he gets nothing. If he can make 35K in another job, he gets 2/3rds of 5K (the 40 he did make versus the 35 he now makes) a year in comp , or $3,333.33 a year. That is not a windfall. And the employer does not have to settle with him in a lump sum, but can give him his little checks for the next twenty years, which sentences him to never making more than he made the day he got hurt.

It is not a money making deal, and the quote about hundreds of thousands of dollars makes no sense unless he is completely unable to work.

This is a story that is only a big deal if the preposterous prediction of the plaintiff lawyer is right....and he is paid to demonize the cop and get sympathy for his client, so of course he is making a worst case scenario.

And so you all know, the doctrine of respondeat superior says that the family of the deceased girls will recover regardless of whether the cop is poor or not. Which is a good thing, because the cop could file a chapter 7 and get rid of his individual debt for that liability for $1500 bucks in fees and costs with a bankruptcy attorney.

Not like he has to work particularly hard at it, considering he is off basically scott-free for something that would put you or I in jail for a decade or so...at least.

 

[Gatorubet]

Then comp is totally [censored]ed up...like about 70% of the laws in this country. Your earlier quote about "it's about the law, not about justice" rings all too true...

No, MIli - it is not fucked up. It is exactly what business interests want, and what most legislatures of most states agree is the fair thing to do.

If you get hurt because of someone's negligence you have a right to sue for your damages. And here let us assume it is a valid claim with both real negligence and real damages. Now even though that has always been our right to sue if truly injured by real negligence, business did not want workers to have that right. They are liable for the acts of employees, and so would be on the hook if a co-worker caused you to be hurt as they are the co-worker's employer. Plus - the businesses do not want to be sued if THEY screw up and hurt you (again, assuming valid claims). Because if you can sue, you can sue for lost wages, loss of future earnings capacity pain and suffering, mental anguish, and sometimes punitive damages.

So the business interests got legislatures to pass a law saying that you cannot sue your employer for negligence, nor can you sue your co-worker for negligence - even if they were negligent. And you cannot recover anything for pain and suffering, and you cannot even get your full wages you lost because you got hurt. Well, that sucks.

So how did they sell the fucking the working man/woman over by depriving them of their rights (because there were many on the side of the workers saying it is not right to limit their damages and right to sue)???? They said, "OK, here is the deal....you are giving up some important stuff - so to make it fair you can get your medicals paid, and 2/3rds of your wages paid if you are injured for any reason at work - and you get this even if it was your dumb ass and not your employer who caused you to get hurt."

So it was a compromise that sought to protect employers and workers, and to see to it that in return for giving up the right to sue for actual damages the worker would get medical bills paid and the family of the injured worker would get at least something to buy food and pay the rent - even if it was only 2/3rds of the salary. And the comp is a right not based upon negligence, so the family could be paid without having to wait three to five years for trial, as the family need to eat this month.

So it serves a purpose protecting families and it serves a purpose protecting businesses from the possibility of lawsuits for millions because the employer or co-worker seriously injured a fellow employee.

Big picture Mili. In an individual case it may look unfair, but the comp system is there for a very good reason, and it limits the cost to business of litigation from work place injuries. If we do not allow comp, we go back to everyone can sue their bosses for anything. Big picture.

 

[Gatorubet]

Not like he has to work particularly hard at it, considering he is off basically scott-free for something that would put you or I in jail for a decade or so...at least.

Yep. Which is why I said the plea deal was the real crime a few posts ago.

You know how much we agree

 

[MightbeaBuck]

If the driver pulled into a bar on his route for a few cold ones and hit the girl leaving the bar parking lot, then he was not delivering in the course and scope so not job related.

To phrase it so as to fit this particular situation: If the driver pulled into a coffee shop on his route for a few donuts and hit the girl leaving the coffee shop parking lot, then he was not delivering in the course and scope so it was not job related.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

And the goal is to get the most overall justice from the system. That is hard for many non-lawyers to accept, and they see the micro result and not the macro.

I'll remember this the next time some lawyer says, "I'd rather see 10,000 guilty people go free than one innocent person go to jail!"

 

[Gatorubet]

To phrase it so as to fit this particular situation: If the driver pulled into a coffee shop on his route for a few donuts and hit the girl leaving the coffee shop parking lot, then he was not delivering in the course and scope so it was not job related.

It is not that black and white. The question would be is getting coffee and a donut the type of thing that a reasonable person would expect an employee with the sort of freedom a deliveryman with a vehicle would do? Also, if the employer has always let the employees have that leeway, then it is still work related. If the employer has an express rule prohibiting stopping for coffee or food - then it is a different result. If there is no official rule, you look at practice and custom.

Some jobs require you to eat at a certain time and place. Some jobs let you eat anywhere you want during the course of your day. No one rule would fit as there are many different jobs, and many different ways that even similar jobs are performed at different companies in different parts of the city or state.

 

[Gatorubet]

I'll remember this the next time some lawyer says, "I'd rather see 10,000 guilty people go free than one innocent person go to jail!"

Well, there are thousands of innocent people in jail, so that is just b.s. :p

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

No, MIli - it is not fucked up. It is exactly what business interests want, and what most legislatures of most states agree is the fair thing to do.

Thus, it's fucked up.

The fact the someone can get paid, totally without regard to his/her actions, is fucked up. I don't give a fuck what worker's comp was initially designed for, or what business or politicians think is right, the fact that someone, whose negligence resulted in the deaths of two innocent people, can get paid simply because he paid into the collective pot, is totally fucked.