• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Asked about the family and public perception of Mitchell profiting from the crash, O'Sullivan said, "We were not retained to defend Mitchell or his actions. Our responsibility is just to administer the claim."

Calling the BP lawyer team to defend against lawyer bashing in 5...4...3...2...:tongue2:
 
Upvote 0
Hey. You have laws or you do not. He is entitled to comp or not. There is no clause in any workers comp policy that I have ever read that says you do not get comp when you are at fault. In fact, you give up the right to sue your employer and instead agree to take comp instead - no matter who is actually at fault in the accident - even if the employer is at fault.

Comp is usually 2/3 of regular pay, so people who are injured by employer or co-employee negligence do not get made whole, and they get NO pain and suffering of any kind. That is a true negative, so the trade off for that is that you get the 2/3rds if you are hurt - no matter who is at fault - even if it was caused by you. That is a Trade-off that works well for some and sucks for others.

I fail to see anything but a uniform application of workers comp law. The lawyers who are helping him get comp are following the law to a "T", and there is no law or theory of law that would disqualify the trooper from those benefits so long as he was injured and it happened from a work related injury. You can bitch about the work comp law, but it is a sword that cuts both ways. Nothing about comp limits or diminishes the right of the family to recover from the state patrol for the deaths. The fact that the DA cut a plea deal is far worse to me that a routine and neutral application of workers comp benefits.
 
Upvote 0
" This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." --- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.


Civil suit in 3, 2, 1....


Gatorubet said:
You can bitch about the work comp law, but it is a sword that cuts both ways.
Click to expand...

And if it is like most workman's comp cases then the trooper's negligence should be a factor in denying his claim.
 
Upvote 0
Muck;1781505; said:
" This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." --- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.


Civil suit in 3, 2, 1....
Click to expand...
Of course, the Holmes quote is a bit out of context, because it is not unthinkable that cases of individual justice need to be thwarted to obtain systemic justice. And I use again the example of illegal/improper evidence collection and retention by cops at a crime scene that results in a murderer going free.

The threat to the whole system of justice that would occur by weakening laws respecting the validity and accuracy of evidence used by the state to convict everyone - well - that threat to the entire system of justice outweighs the bad resulting from the loss of one criminal conviction - even if the scumbag likely did it. So it is not that justice is not the goal, but there are often conflicting principles at play. And if you would not want your son to be convicted of a crime if the police used poorly obtained and preserved evidence, then the same must be true of the other guy that was released due to an evidence technicality.

If we have equal application of the law, then it follows that the application can sometimes bring about individual results that seem unfair. But you have to step back and realize that a uniform and understandable system of justice will result in an overall higher degree of correct results than a system that is inconsistent in application using non-uniform rules.

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.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1781496; said:
Hey. You have laws or you do not. He is entitled to comp or not. There is no clause in any workers comp policy that I have ever read that says you do not get comp when you are at fault. In fact, you give up the right to sue your employer and instead agree to take comp instead - no matter who is actually at fault in the accident - even if the employer is at fault.

Comp is usually 2/3 of regular pay, so people who are injured by employer or co-employee negligence do not get made whole, and they get NO pain and suffering of any kind. That is a true negative, so the trade off for that is that you get the 2/3rds if you are hurt - no matter who is at fault - even if it was caused by you. That is a Trade-off that works well for some and sucks for others.

I fail to see anything but a uniform application of workers comp law. The lawyers who are helping him get comp are following the law to a "T", and there is no law or theory of law that would disqualify the trooper from those benefits so long as he was injured and it happened from a work related injury. You can bitch about the work comp law, but it is a sword that cuts both ways. Nothing about comp limits or diminishes the right of the family to recover from the state patrol for the deaths. The fact that the DA cut a plea deal is far worse to me that a routine and neutral application of workers comp benefits.
Click to expand...

So you mean that technically if someone were to kill a person in their cubicle and break their hand while doing it, they could conceivably collect workman's comp while serving time for murder?

EDIT: That's a real question (a hyperbolic one, of course), not a lawyer-bashing question, if it sounds like one.
 
Upvote 0
Bucklion;1781882; said:
So you mean that technically if someone were to kill a person in their cubicle and break their hand while doing it, they could conceivably collect workman's comp while serving time for murder?

EDIT: That's a real question (a hyperbolic one, of course), not a lawyer-bashing question, if it sounds like one.
Click to expand...

Murdering someone is not within the scope of one's job duties for the normal cubicle dweller. Driving (even badly) is within the scope of job duties of a highway patrolman. You have to be injured while in the course and scope of employment. You said kill a person. Arbitrarily attacking someone is not job related. 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.
 
Upvote 0
Muck;1781505; said:
And if it is like most workman's comp cases then the trooper's negligence should be a factor in denying his claim.
Click to expand...

If it is like most comp cases I know then negligence should have nothing at all to do with the claim. Comp is not based upon negligence theory - in my state anyway.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1781891; said:
Murdering someone is not within the scope of one's job duties for the normal cubicle dweller. Driving (even badly) is within the scope of job duties of a highway patrolman. You have to be injured while in the course and scope of employment. You said kill a person. Arbitrarily attacking someone is not job related. 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.
Click to expand...

I also wouldn't be at fault for defending myself.

OK, what about this...if a person is drunk and kills someone within the scope of their job duties (say a truck driver and kills an 11 year old girl on a bike) and gets hurt in the crash, are they then eligible for comp?
 
Upvote 0
Bucklion;1781894; said:
I also wouldn't be at fault for defending myself.

OK, what about this...if a person is drunk and kills someone within the scope of their job duties (say a truck driver and kills an 11 year old girl on a bike) and gets hurt in the crash, are they then eligible for comp?
Click to expand...

To be more accurate, comp laws are just laws. You can put any damn reasonable limitation you want in the laws, and if a public policy of stopping DUIs is important to any state, I guess they can insert them in the comp laws. For instance, you cannot lie about your health in your job app (bad back for example) and then collect comp when you hurt your back at work. So when I say that normally if you are injured on the job within the course and scope of your duties, you are covered, that statement is not an absolute.

Like any question, it is fact based. If the boss required the driver to do shots with him on Fridays, and said he would dock him for being a pussy if he did not join him doing shots, then it is job related. 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. If he was dropping his load of beer off in his Budweiser truck, then he might be eligible. If he was drunk when he started work he likely is covered. If he stopped along the way and got drunk in a bar it is certainly muddier.

The thing is that comp is not supposed to be awarded or denied based upon the negligence of the employee or the employer or coworkers. Just injured on the job while working. Getting burned by a job fire is compensable. Getting burned at work while practicing your night job magic act flaming sword trick is not covered because your sword trick is not work related to your day job.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1781905; said:
To be more accurate, comp laws are just laws. You can put any damn reasonable limitation you want in the laws, and if a public policy of stopping DUIs is important to any state, I guess they can insert them in the comp laws. For instance, you cannot lie about your health in your job app (bad back for example) and then collect comp when you hurt your back at work. So when I say that normally if you are injured on the job within the course and scope of your duties, you are covered, that statement is not an absolute.

Like any question, it is fact based. If the boss required the driver to do shots with him on Fridays, and said he would dock him for being a pussy if he did not join him doing shots, then it is job related. 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. If he was dropping his load of beer off in his Budweiser truck, then he might be eligible. If he was drunk when he started work he likely is covered. If he stopped along the way and got drunk in a bar it is certainly muddier.

The thing is that comp is not supposed to be awarded or denied based upon the negligence of the employee or the employer or coworkers. Just injured on the job while working. Getting burned by a job fire is compensable. Getting burned at work while practicing your night job magic act flaming sword trick is not covered because your sword trick is not work related to your day job.
Click to expand...

You say that like you are certain :paranoid:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top