Depends on what they were fighting about — work related or personal differences. Same as customer attacking an employee. Of course, in the infinite wisdome of the legislature, we have 50 states and 50 different WC statutes….
Creative, indeed! How is messing with a chimp at someone’s house in the scope and duties of employment with a towing company?
Further, the monkey had Xanax in it’s sytem — EVEN IF she was acting as an “employee” at the time of injury, isn’t the “employer” still negligent for unnecessarily creating a hazardous condition for the employee by giving a large animal a strong narcotic outside of legitimate medical practice? Wouldn’t there be a valid employers liability suit?
Lemme see. Ms. Nash gets forced to take Section 1 benefits, but because her employer exhibited negligence, she can sue under Section 2 for whatever primary and excess layers she can go after – and beyond as the employer owned the home and attach whatever assets she can.
That’s Plan Number B.
Plan Number C involves the monkey who was appearing daily at the garage and presumably not caged while there. He probably had his lunch catered and his daily activities at the garage, plus his use as a marketing campaign, made him an uncompensated worker.
So, the state goes after the owner, requiring years of work logs and insisting that Travis D. Chimp should have been given minimum wage (less room & board stipends). Owner pays a big fine and back premiums and probably gets all her undeclared workers shipped out of the country, and maybe even gets a little jail time in the Litchfield Hills.
Plan Number D – once Plan Number C gets completed, and Travis is legitimized, then his dependants (I guess everybody forgot he was sleeping with the boss, with “mixed” results) claim survivor status and get to file a wrongful death suit.
Plan E gets the owner for administering drugs without a license to an employee.
Plan F says if she’s in the towing business, she’s probably ‘connected’ and is gonna get whacked by the Boys in B’Port.
Who really owns Travis Chimp? In the eyes of the law he is merely chattel property. Is he an asset of the towing company? If not, it seems to me that having an employee ordering supplies for an animal owned as a pet by another individual (even if it is the company’s owner) wouldn’t be the same thing as a job requirement of wild animal handling for a tow-truck operator. If he IS a company-owned asset I hope the company has general liability coverage and an umbrella policy as well — to cover them for exposing others on their premises to an inherently dangerous instrumentality [unrestrained 200 lb wild animal]. I’m hoping this “on-the-job injury” argument fails and the judge sanctions the lawyers for filing a spurious claim. I’m also hoping the IRS gets wind of this, along with OSHA. Oh, and if Travis didn’t have an Rx from his veterinarian for that Xanax, I hope the SPCA and the Feds look into it as well. It disgusts me that Travis’s owner isn’t willing to be personally responsible for the acts of her pet. I find it appalling that she would attempt to gerryrig the state’s worker compensation program to get her animal attack liability paid for. I’m pretty sure that the other employers who contribute to the workers’ compensation system would not want this to be treated as an on-the-job injury claim. Shame on her and her lawyers.
Bravo Anne Nonymous !
You have captured the essence of this whole tragic and avoidable incident.
We need federal law prohibiting the keeping of wild animals in urban areas.
And whereever kept, the owners must likewise be mandated, under law to secure and maintain a bond to protect the injured from harm.
What makes these people think that an otherwise “domesticated” wild animal (isn’t there a contradiction in there), think that the animals’ INSTINCT will never erupt as it did in this case ?
Sure: I love animals but who in their right mind would have a beast from the wild residing in their home.
Gimme a break !
The owner of the beast hires a scumbag attorney to try and weasel her way out of her responsibility/liability after ruining someone’s life? Personally I think there should be no liability as it was an assumption of risk and a stupid one at that. Regardless, you’d think the chimp owner would want to help her employee/friend as best she can. The WC angle won’t fly since the victim was employed by the Chimp owners towing company.
Were the WC premiums being paid for this employee? Rated as a wild animal handling operation? How is this strategy better for the chimp owner than losing the judgement and declaring bankruptcy, which is going to happen anyway? Seems like a path toward jail time on top of the inevitable fiancial ruin.
Question for serious insurance and workers comp insurance professionals and attorneys. How would workers comp respond if a co-worker attacked another co-worker on the job. For example a disgruntled employee attacks and maims co-workers. Would the courts / State view this as work related injuries? Will this interpretation vary by state?
Mark is 100% correct “Depends on what they were fighting about — work related or personal differences.”
See “Zemis v. SCI Contractors, Inc” — employee was in auto accident w/ a co-workers wife. Co-worker blamed employee and confronted him physically at the job site. Courts determined was not covered under comp.
See “Appeal of Griffin” — two co-workers got into a fight. The driver was driving coworkers back from a meal, and the fight started with a quarrel about his driving. The driving was work-related and the fight was about the driving; thus the injuries were work-related.
–paraphrase of “Workers Comepensation Guide Interpretation & Analysis” by Thamann & Reitz
Depends on what they were fighting about — work related or personal differences. Same as customer attacking an employee. Of course, in the infinite wisdome of the legislature, we have 50 states and 50 different WC statutes….
Creative, indeed! How is messing with a chimp at someone’s house in the scope and duties of employment with a towing company?
Further, the monkey had Xanax in it’s sytem — EVEN IF she was acting as an “employee” at the time of injury, isn’t the “employer” still negligent for unnecessarily creating a hazardous condition for the employee by giving a large animal a strong narcotic outside of legitimate medical practice? Wouldn’t there be a valid employers liability suit?
I’ll be a monkey’s uncle!
Lemme see. Ms. Nash gets forced to take Section 1 benefits, but because her employer exhibited negligence, she can sue under Section 2 for whatever primary and excess layers she can go after – and beyond as the employer owned the home and attach whatever assets she can.
That’s Plan Number B.
Plan Number C involves the monkey who was appearing daily at the garage and presumably not caged while there. He probably had his lunch catered and his daily activities at the garage, plus his use as a marketing campaign, made him an uncompensated worker.
So, the state goes after the owner, requiring years of work logs and insisting that Travis D. Chimp should have been given minimum wage (less room & board stipends). Owner pays a big fine and back premiums and probably gets all her undeclared workers shipped out of the country, and maybe even gets a little jail time in the Litchfield Hills.
Plan Number D – once Plan Number C gets completed, and Travis is legitimized, then his dependants (I guess everybody forgot he was sleeping with the boss, with “mixed” results) claim survivor status and get to file a wrongful death suit.
Plan E gets the owner for administering drugs without a license to an employee.
Plan F says if she’s in the towing business, she’s probably ‘connected’ and is gonna get whacked by the Boys in B’Port.
The words “willful and wonton” come to mind given the nature of Ms. Nash’s injuries. That’s liability you cannot escape.
Who really owns Travis Chimp? In the eyes of the law he is merely chattel property. Is he an asset of the towing company? If not, it seems to me that having an employee ordering supplies for an animal owned as a pet by another individual (even if it is the company’s owner) wouldn’t be the same thing as a job requirement of wild animal handling for a tow-truck operator. If he IS a company-owned asset I hope the company has general liability coverage and an umbrella policy as well — to cover them for exposing others on their premises to an inherently dangerous instrumentality [unrestrained 200 lb wild animal]. I’m hoping this “on-the-job injury” argument fails and the judge sanctions the lawyers for filing a spurious claim. I’m also hoping the IRS gets wind of this, along with OSHA. Oh, and if Travis didn’t have an Rx from his veterinarian for that Xanax, I hope the SPCA and the Feds look into it as well. It disgusts me that Travis’s owner isn’t willing to be personally responsible for the acts of her pet. I find it appalling that she would attempt to gerryrig the state’s worker compensation program to get her animal attack liability paid for. I’m pretty sure that the other employers who contribute to the workers’ compensation system would not want this to be treated as an on-the-job injury claim. Shame on her and her lawyers.
Now, I’ve seen everything.
Instead of insurance policies, why don’t we just hand out a credit card that says in big bold letters; “YOU ARE COVERED”.
This is what seems to occur anyway
Bravo Anne Nonymous !
You have captured the essence of this whole tragic and avoidable incident.
We need federal law prohibiting the keeping of wild animals in urban areas.
And whereever kept, the owners must likewise be mandated, under law to secure and maintain a bond to protect the injured from harm.
What makes these people think that an otherwise “domesticated” wild animal (isn’t there a contradiction in there), think that the animals’ INSTINCT will never erupt as it did in this case ?
Sure: I love animals but who in their right mind would have a beast from the wild residing in their home.
Gimme a break !
The owner of the beast hires a scumbag attorney to try and weasel her way out of her responsibility/liability after ruining someone’s life? Personally I think there should be no liability as it was an assumption of risk and a stupid one at that. Regardless, you’d think the chimp owner would want to help her employee/friend as best she can. The WC angle won’t fly since the victim was employed by the Chimp owners towing company.
Were the WC premiums being paid for this employee? Rated as a wild animal handling operation? How is this strategy better for the chimp owner than losing the judgement and declaring bankruptcy, which is going to happen anyway? Seems like a path toward jail time on top of the inevitable fiancial ruin.
Question for serious insurance and workers comp insurance professionals and attorneys. How would workers comp respond if a co-worker attacked another co-worker on the job. For example a disgruntled employee attacks and maims co-workers. Would the courts / State view this as work related injuries? Will this interpretation vary by state?
So THAT is why this company scratched my car last year!
What a monkey job.
My favorite answer!! ” It Depends ”
Mark is 100% correct “Depends on what they were fighting about — work related or personal differences.”
See “Zemis v. SCI Contractors, Inc” — employee was in auto accident w/ a co-workers wife. Co-worker blamed employee and confronted him physically at the job site. Courts determined was not covered under comp.
See “Appeal of Griffin” — two co-workers got into a fight. The driver was driving coworkers back from a meal, and the fight started with a quarrel about his driving. The driving was work-related and the fight was about the driving; thus the injuries were work-related.
–paraphrase of “Workers Comepensation Guide Interpretation & Analysis” by Thamann & Reitz