I don’t think he was sitting on the branch he was cutting. They’re trying to say he fell because the branch he was on broke, not because he was intoxicated.
But I know I can easily go boom-boom if I’ve had that much to drink. And I’m a professional!
Part of the article did state, “there was evidence the accident may have occurred as a result of the tree branch snapping while (Phillips) was attempting to cut it”
Not terribly bright, unless you are drunk.
I did enjoy reading his argument, “that the Crockers should have known he was intoxicated because they knew he was an alcoholic and that he usually drank while working.”
Working intoxicated should be grounds for dismissal. Especially in a line of work where the safety of others and property is at high risk.
What happens when a drunk fire fighter falls through the roof of a burning building? He didn’t fall because he was drunk but because the fire burned through the roof????
As in California Workers’Comp, it appears the basis for this finding is that the intoxication was not the “Proximate Cause” of the injury. Although intoxication should be ground for dismissal (unless of course it was done with the knowledge of and/or condoned by management, etc), it does not bar one from collecting benefits for an injury sustained arising out of, in the course of one employment unless in fact the injury was sustained as a result of the intoxication. Also, if it’s true as stated in this article that they knew he was an alcoholic and that he usually drank while working, even if the intoxication was the proximate cause of injury, the employer would not likely be able to rely on the intoxication defense, as it seems they knowingly permitted him to work in that condition.
281-A:14 Employee’s Fault. – The employer shall not be liable for any injury to a worker which is caused in whole or in part by the intoxication, as defined in RSA 281-A:2, XII-a, or by the serious and willful misconduct of the worker. The provision as to intoxication shall not apply, however, if the employer knew that the employee was intoxicated
It seems plain to me that the employer/ insurance carrier needs to prove that intoxication contributed to the injury, and that the employer did not know that the employee was intoxicated. This article does not really give us the details. However, I don’t think it is much of a stretch to surmise that when person is climbing a tree while drunk, that intoxication is a contributing cause when he falls.
His BAC was 0.27, and there is no “competent evidence” that they didn’t know he was intoxicated at the time of the injury??
Here’s competent evidence, Who in the world sits on the same branch you’re cutting?
Answer: a drunk.
If you’re in a tree with a .27 BAC and you fall out of the tree, can’t we just connect the dots. Come on people.
I don’t think he was sitting on the branch he was cutting. They’re trying to say he fell because the branch he was on broke, not because he was intoxicated.
But I know I can easily go boom-boom if I’ve had that much to drink. And I’m a professional!
Libby,
Part of the article did state, “there was evidence the accident may have occurred as a result of the tree branch snapping while (Phillips) was attempting to cut it”
Not terribly bright, unless you are drunk.
I did enjoy reading his argument, “that the Crockers should have known he was intoxicated because they knew he was an alcoholic and that he usually drank while working.”
You might want to clarify…it says your a professional drunk!
:-) PS: I really don’t believe that, though!
Working intoxicated should be grounds for dismissal. Especially in a line of work where the safety of others and property is at high risk.
What happens when a drunk fire fighter falls through the roof of a burning building? He didn’t fall because he was drunk but because the fire burned through the roof????
Bit of an exageration, but you get what I mean………
As in California Workers’Comp, it appears the basis for this finding is that the intoxication was not the “Proximate Cause” of the injury. Although intoxication should be ground for dismissal (unless of course it was done with the knowledge of and/or condoned by management, etc), it does not bar one from collecting benefits for an injury sustained arising out of, in the course of one employment unless in fact the injury was sustained as a result of the intoxication. Also, if it’s true as stated in this article that they knew he was an alcoholic and that he usually drank while working, even if the intoxication was the proximate cause of injury, the employer would not likely be able to rely on the intoxication defense, as it seems they knowingly permitted him to work in that condition.
In New Hampshire the rule states:
281-A:14 Employee’s Fault. – The employer shall not be liable for any injury to a worker which is caused in whole or in part by the intoxication, as defined in RSA 281-A:2, XII-a, or by the serious and willful misconduct of the worker. The provision as to intoxication shall not apply, however, if the employer knew that the employee was intoxicated
It seems plain to me that the employer/ insurance carrier needs to prove that intoxication contributed to the injury, and that the employer did not know that the employee was intoxicated. This article does not really give us the details. However, I don’t think it is much of a stretch to surmise that when person is climbing a tree while drunk, that intoxication is a contributing cause when he falls.