The 16 year old was shot as she was walking to her car. 16 year old family would then sue and Employers liability would kick in. So I would rather pay a trip and fall then a killed 16 year old.
I’m a underwriter and agree that benifits should be paid in this case. It was the “right thing to do”. Wonder who the WC carrier was?
I agree with both of you. I have handled WC claims where individuals were shot or killed. The lack of security and the employer’s previous knowledge of the store being in a potentially unsafe location has always come into play in the liability case.
What a great boss: “…employer, John P. Wilkinson, testified that it was not a requirement for the manager to make sure an employee reaches her care safely.”
Gee, thanks d0uche bag. Glad to know you care so much about your employees. What a jerk.
Texas had a case about 18 years ago where 2 reenage employees were killed during an apparent robbery of the frozen yogurt store. Also killed were two other young girls.
The families sued and the lack of security for employees late at night was a major factor in the families receiving somewhere between 5 and 10 million settlement.
While not strictly in his job description, the manager did the right thing in seeing to the safety of his young employee.
The store and the WC carrier should have stepped up and done the right thing for him.
The lack of corporate morality has led us to the economic mess we are in, we need to return of ethics and morality at all levels of business.
Agree with all of you. Maybe this will send a message to the jerk off judge who dis-allowed WC for a McDonalds employee to intervened in an attack on a female customer and was shot for his efforts.
We all know the only reason an employer would contest a WC claim is to prevent his premiums from being increased. People should boycott this business and spit on the manager.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The 16 year old was shot as she was walking to her car. 16 year old family would then sue and Employers liability would kick in. So I would rather pay a trip and fall then a killed 16 year old.
I’m a underwriter and agree that benifits should be paid in this case. It was the “right thing to do”. Wonder who the WC carrier was?
There is always a renewed glimmer of hope when the courts come to the right decision for the right reason.
I agree with both of you. I have handled WC claims where individuals were shot or killed. The lack of security and the employer’s previous knowledge of the store being in a potentially unsafe location has always come into play in the liability case.
What a great boss: “…employer, John P. Wilkinson, testified that it was not a requirement for the manager to make sure an employee reaches her care safely.”
Gee, thanks d0uche bag. Glad to know you care so much about your employees. What a jerk.
Texas had a case about 18 years ago where 2 reenage employees were killed during an apparent robbery of the frozen yogurt store. Also killed were two other young girls.
The families sued and the lack of security for employees late at night was a major factor in the families receiving somewhere between 5 and 10 million settlement.
While not strictly in his job description, the manager did the right thing in seeing to the safety of his young employee.
The store and the WC carrier should have stepped up and done the right thing for him.
The lack of corporate morality has led us to the economic mess we are in, we need to return of ethics and morality at all levels of business.
Agree with all of you. Maybe this will send a message to the jerk off judge who dis-allowed WC for a McDonalds employee to intervened in an attack on a female customer and was shot for his efforts.
We all know the only reason an employer would contest a WC claim is to prevent his premiums from being increased. People should boycott this business and spit on the manager.