The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: TAB on December 24, 2011, 02:17:40 AM
-
A cop that has a AD and shoots themself and a painter that puts his hand infront of the airless to remove the tip housing and injects themselfs with paint?
both are employees that broke a major safety rule and got hurt becuase of it. both will be paid workmens comp( they should not be, but thats not how it is) so whats diffrent about the 2?
-
Other than the fact that one can sue their employer and the other can't, the only difference I can see is that the AD had the potential to injure others, where as the painter was only a hazard to himself. I do disagree on the workers' comp thing though. Its a fact of life that people make stupid mistakes. Even if the injury was the result of a brain fart, as long as it wasn't the result of malicious intent or showing up drunk, they should be entitled to workman's comp if it happened on the job. We have all done stupid things in a moment of idiocy. Most of us were lucky enough to say "Darn, that could have ended badly", or more profane words to that effect. I don't care it its noticing a loose sleeve after stepping back from the lathe, or reaching for something while a machine was on, or having a chainsaw jump on you, we've all been there. It shouldn't let you sue your employer, but I have zero problem getting the injury patched up out of workman's comp insurance. Just my .02.
FQ13
-
They both could sue, The chances of winning are about the same.
-
They both could sue, The chances of winning are about the same.
Except the PD has soveriegn immunity. Sueing the government is a very difficult, if not impossible task, unless they violated their own procedures, did something unconstitutional, or engaged in what a jury would define as reckless or criminal behavior. Using your example, if Gomer said he wasn't properly trained with his weapon and the ND wasn't his fault, all the PD would have to do was show that he checked the boxes off on their training requirements and the suit is over. The painter on the other hand? Even if you state that you trained the guy to your company's policy, its still a question for a jury to decide as to whether that training was adequate. They will never hear the case in regards to the PD as a judge will dismiss it pre-trial.
FQ13
-
like I said, about the same. you have to prove there was training issue. Pretty hard thing to do, I've never seen a painting company or local union that did not stress not doing that. Infact the basic safety rules for both are the same.
1G the gun is always loaded
1A the gun is always pressurized
2G/A Always point the gun in safe direction
3G/A keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
There are many more, but those are the 3 big ones for both.
i'd not be shocked at all if the guys that wrote the rules ( which would be in the late 50s ) didn't copy the gun safety rules.
-
In NY you can't sue if you get hurt on the job UNLESS there is a third party involved that contributed to the injury.
-
I hope the dummy likes his new tattoo. :D
-
Was he properly trained?
Was the gun working properly?
Were the guards in place when he started his shift (you did not modify anything?
Yes, Yes, Yes, and your workcomp will pay, but beyond that he can't win a case based on his own stupidity.
-
I don't think your going to get it...
the diffrence is the cop is still employeed.
I read a artical in the local news paper about a officer that was just coming back to work after he shot himself. One would think they would pull his badge, but nope.
-
Two ways to look at that.
The glass is half empty view point: Every recruiting class has one idiot. This is the guy and we're stuck with him.
The glass is full view point: Ok, we knew there was going to be an idiot, and we've found him. Hopefully he's learned his lesson. After all, if I shot the SOB, I'd go to jail, but since he did it himself I can mock him at my leisure. ;D
FQ13
-
the diffrence is the cop is still employeed.
You know, for a bunch of wankers who cry "officer safety" at the drop of a hat, this is ludicrous. The guy is now a known risk to his fellow officers. And no, they don't learn from their mistakes, as a general rule cops are NOT gun guys.
But it demonstrates the depth and breadth to which the cops will protect their own.