ExiledInIllinois Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Thoughts?? McDonald's Shooting Victim Seeks Worker's Comp "We've denied this claim in its entirety, it's our opinion that Mr. Haskett's injuries did not arise out of or within the course of his employment," a portion of the statement reads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Interesting case. I'm sure the employer is arguing that the scope of coverage probably did exist when he was defending the customer, but that the scope of employment ended when the aggressor left the store and was neither in the time or place of employment. What if the "employee" followed him for five blocks? for two days? Not a clear case by any means and probably an interesting one for the Workers Comp board and maybe a court to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Didn't happen in the store, and the employee had no responsibility to pursue the perp out into the parking lot. Great deed, but should have stopped when the perp left the store. Sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Thoughts?? McDonald's Shooting Victim Seeks Worker's Comp "We've denied this claim in its entirety, it's our opinion that Mr. Haskett's injuries did not arise out of or within the course of his employment," a portion of the statement reads. Another way oof looking at this is to say the employer is stupid ... their damages are capped and regulated within the workers' comp system. If the guy enters into a lawsuit against McDonalds the sky is the limit. Not to mention the dude was at work doing his job at the time of the shooting. Seems lame to me to say that protecting a customer was outside of his work duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Let us remember that the shooter was just 27 years old...young and stupid. How many of us did stupid things when we were young? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Another way oof looking at this is to say the employer is stupid ... their damages are capped and regulated within the workers' comp system. If the guy enters into a lawsuit against McDonalds the sky is the limit. Not to mention the dude was at work doing his job at the time of the shooting. Seems lame to me to say that protecting a customer was outside of his work duties. Tort action against Mickey D's? Probably not going to be successful. Mickey D's didn't bring the aggressor into the store, didn't direct the employee to intervene, didn't authorize him to pursue the perp. I don't see a remedy against the employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Let us remember that the shooter was just 27 years old...young and stupid. How many of us did stupid things when we were young? What? I'm 25 and I know its wrong to beat women and to shoot people. I'm guessing you were joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Tort action against Mickey D's? Probably not going to be successful. Mickey D's didn't bring the aggressor into the store, didn't direct the employee to intervene, didn't authorize him to pursue the perp. I don't see a remedy against the employer. Mickey Ds makes horrible torts. Those apple thingies aren't worth a nickle. Regarding the kid...he did a very courageous thing. If right is right he'll get comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Tort action against Mickey D's? Probably not going to be successful. Mickey D's didn't bring the aggressor into the store, didn't direct the employee to intervene, didn't authorize him to pursue the perp. I don't see a remedy against the employer. Hard to know based on the limited facts we have been exposed to. Problem from a financial standpoint for McD's is that it also costs you a boatload just to defend your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Probably wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss. If I were Mickey D's there would be a lot of other areas of potential liability in the operation of their business that I'd be putting my efforts into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Mickey Ds makes horrible torts. Those apple thingies aren't worth a nickle. Regarding the kid...he did a very courageous thing. If right is right he'll get comp. I stopped there for breakfast and the girl at the counter had VERY nice torts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Let us remember that the shooter was just 27 years old...young and stupid. How many of us did stupid things when we were young? Do you know the difference between carrying around a gun and shooting somebody? Shooting somebody is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Does ML have an alibi? He probably just had the munchies and the damn B word wouldn't give up her big mac. Then the damn employeee (who was probably a canadian) got all up in his face. It wasn't his fault he was packing heat in a bad part of town, the employee shoud have known. Since he was in ML's face and denying him his munchies no way the canadian wanna-be should get a dime from the bitches. Talking about dimes, sh-- ML wants to know where his dime is. The punk ass pigs took his stash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Wilson says his client has recently returned to work to pay bills. If he's well enough to work, no need to pay him comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Does ML have an alibi? He probably just had the munchies and the damn B word wouldn't give up her big mac. Then the damn employeee (who was probably a canadian) got all up in his face. It wasn't his fault he was packing heat in a bad part of town, the employee shoud have known. Since he was in ML's face and denying him his munchies no way the canadian wanna-be should get a dime from the bitches. Talking about dimes, sh-- ML wants to know where his dime is. The punk ass pigs took his stash. thank you crayonz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Wilson says his client has recently returned to work to pay bills. If he's well enough to work, no need to pay him comp. Not really. It sounds as if he has some $300,000 in medical bills, and may have a permanent partial disability that might be compensable. He is pretty much out of luck if he doesn't get compensation, but the case of the Buffalo school teacher a few years back who was assaulted on her way into school is also one where comp was denied. These are tough cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Not really. It sounds as if he has some $300,000 in medical bills, and may have a permanent partial disability that might be compensable. He is pretty much out of luck if he doesn't get compensation, but the case of the Buffalo school teacher a few years back who was assaulted on her way into school is also one where comp was denied. These are tough cases. Different set of facts - in the case this thread is based on the guy was already into his shift. Not sure of the facts in the situation you reference but longstanding pattern supported in case law holds that commute into work (or back home) is in no way compensible. Given that she was a teacher she likely had a fixed start time to her day. Would be easy to argue not in the course and scope of work if assualt took place prior to this start time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsPride12 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Does ML have an alibi? He probably just had the munchies and the damn B word wouldn't give up her big mac. Then the damn employeee (who was probably a canadian) got all up in his face. It wasn't his fault he was packing heat in a bad part of town, the employee shoud have known. Since he was in ML's face and denying him his munchies no way the canadian wanna-be should get a dime from the bitches. Talking about dimes, sh-- ML wants to know where his dime is. The punk ass pigs took his stash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts