“Plaintiff lawyers claim that the doctor’s meeting was a condition of Wellinger’s employment and that the company knew or should have known he was intoxicated the day of the accident.”
condition of employment – in most cases is a drug and alcohol free environment. being able to provide medical benefits. not for mr to go to the shrink. now, if had set up for a medical appt to see the shrink, that is not the company’s responsibility, unless it happened to be a condition based on previous activity of mr. but according to the article, this was not the case. he could have been seeing a shrink because of personal problems, not related to work or problems incurred to work. when an individual leaves on a sick appt from the company, that time is on his time and not company time. makes you wonder who is wanting more money and why??
With a BAC of .43 I don’t know how he could have been at work before this appt. If he was at work with a BAC that high, there is no way he would not have appeared to be intoxicated. Even an acoholic will appear intoxicated at that level. If his BAC was really that high I’m surprised he was able to do anything.
This guy’s an obvious drunk who the company was attempting to help. He could have left work early and got soused on the way to his appointment. The employer should not be responsible for his bad judgment and character flaw. They’re looking for a deep pocket as usual.
More to this than IJ printed (of course)
Had UGS acted responsibly on the day of this accident, Mr. Weinstein would not have lost his family,” attorney Frank Guerra IV of San Antonio told the jury in Detroit in opening statements in a lawsuit filed by Gary Weinstein.
Guerra told the 10-member jury that coworkers at UGS Corp., now Siemens, in Livonia, knew or should have known that Thomas Wellinger, 54, of Farmington Hills, was in no condition to get into his SUV en route to a company-ordered doctor’s appointment to be treated for alcoholism.
Wellinger, a top UGS executive, never made it to the appointment. Around 3:30 p.m. on May 3, 2005, he rear-ended a Honda sedan, killing the driver, Judith Weinstein, 50, and her two young sons. Wellinger later pleaded no contest to second-degree murder charges and is serving a 19- to 30-year prison sentence for the accident.
I don’t see anything in this article about whether this was a company car or personal car. A BAP might have to respond to this accident if this was an executive and authorized driver under the policy. If it was a personal auto, it is a pretty thin case that a visit to a doctor was under the course and scope of employment. My guess is that it fell under Personal Auto and the limits were indadequate and exhausted so they are going after the BAP with Hired & Non Owned Liability and possible Umbrella.
…and Weinstein is an adult. Tragic but not UGS fault. No one will benefit from this but the attorney. How about being responsible for your actions? Put the blame where it belongs, not on UGS, not on the booze, not on the SUV but on the DRUNK DRIVER. The guy is a tragic drunk. Addict or not he chose to get into that SUV and this decisoin wiped out a family and no doubt destroyed more than 3 lives. Tragic and SICK but not UGS doing…
Jane you are right…..I am from the area and if you could have read about the amount of booze this guy had in the 72 hours before the accident ….it was amazing that he was even standing, much less able to insert a key into the ignition…..a trajic accident and Mr. Wellinger will have decades in prison to think about it. Probably not long enough to kick his addiction though.
well, if he reported to work drunk, then we have a problem because the company told him to go to the shrink… company ordered… now, granted if they wanted to prevent any of this, they should have driven him over there instead they allowed him to drive. their negligence for allowing this incident. now, if the lawyer was good, he’d go after the person or establishment that had served him the liquor prior to the incident! sounds to me like someone really likes big pockets..
…besides, how do you know he didn’t buy the bottle of whiskey and drink it in the bathroom? HE is at fault. HE is a sic pup and HE is at fault. Not the BOOZE or the store that sold it or the bar that served it. (unless the guy is falling down drunk then, yeah, enough is enough.) My point is, put the blame where the blame is due on the ALCOHOLIC.
I know Jane doesn’t like the tort system, but we are working with established law.
Like Chuck said, “if he reported to work drunk, then we have a problem because the company told him to go to the shrink… company ordered… now, granted if they wanted to prevent any of this, they should have driven him over there instead they allowed him to drive.”
If he did report to work that drunk, UGS is liable for millions.
Plus, it doesn’t take a great imagination why UGS had mandated the shrink. The company had noticed something wrong with his behavior (alcoholism).
This should be a pretty easy win if he showed up to work, especially with the added information that he had been on a 72 hour bender.
Typically I agree that personal responsibility should trump any other persons, entities, etc. when it comes to these situations. I am tired of the “it’s someone elses fault” logic that is applied to just about everything these days. But if ANYONE at his work knew that he was that drunk then they had a responsibility to him, others on the road, and their own conscious to keep him out of a car. We’re all adults. We know the consequences of drunk driving but the drunk doesn’t know it.
The concept of “general damages” aka “pain and suffering” might have some validity when a person survives an accident. However, why should the estate of a deceased that didn’t depend on him/her for financial support get rich quick? They all swear “it isn’t about the money” but we all know that _ullshit. In our small minded culture, people have been brainwashed by attorneys to believe that “accidents must = a lawsuit”. Why? MONEY. The idea that they’re getting “justice” or “punishing” the wrongdoer is equally _ullshit. The liability carrier pays. If the wrongdoes isn’t collectible or, God forbid doesn’t have high enough limits, they go find someone, anyone, who does so they can get MONEY. Is our society so pathetically myoptic that “justice” = MONEY?
If an award is to be made, why isn’t it channeled into something that would make a difference, like medical research or a charity? Since everyone agrees you can’t put a price on someone, why do we try? I’d be interested in your comments.
i agree, but you have to remember who is driving this bus — THE LAWYER, so his pockets get bigger. it’s xmas and he’s thinking instead of presents, dollars in his stocking and underneath that tree. it’s the ethics of these lawyers and that is what’s driving our courts to be logged jam.
Lawyers are the scourge of our society. If they closed all the law schools for 20 years, we would still have way too many. We are the most litigous society on earth. Unfortunately, most of our politicians are lawyers and look how screwed up the government is. This claim could have been settled for policy limits of the at fault driver instead of bringing the employer in which had no control over this guy’s actions.
well, we do know that it was apparently a company ordered for him to see the shrink.. you are right about those folks thinking that they are not responsible for their own actions… but remember, that this suit is brought about by the other party, who are looking for bigger pockets, whereas the lawyer is looking for more money to line his pockets… if that person who is at-fault, does not have a lot of money, i can’t blame them for going after more, but it should only be for the costs of funeral. any excessive should be paid only by the party at-fault.
The employer should not be held liable for the act of this employee. If the employer was told by employee he needed to leave to go to psychiatrist appointment then employer had every reason to believe the employee was going to see a doctor. When does employee responsibility start? Sounds by the story the employee then lied to his employer and stopped to drink prior to his appointment with a shrink. If the employee was indeed drinking on the job (say a company sponsored party) then left for dr. appt the drunks company should be held liable under their host liquor. However story seems to indicate employee told his company he was going to doctors appointment. If employee elected to have a few adult beverages in between work and doctors appt, the employee lied to employer. That’s gross negligence and employee should assume full responsibility along with the bar who served him, if indeed there is a bar involved. Sorry for the gentlemen who lost his wife and kid, that is indeed tragic. But the drunken killer should be held liable if he wasn’t drunk at work and lied to his employer to get out of work.
According to the article, there was no evidence that he was drunk on the job. Guess we don’t have enough facts to make a call one way or the other.
“Plaintiff lawyers claim that the doctor’s meeting was a condition of Wellinger’s employment and that the company knew or should have known he was intoxicated the day of the accident.”
condition of employment – in most cases is a drug and alcohol free environment. being able to provide medical benefits. not for mr to go to the shrink. now, if had set up for a medical appt to see the shrink, that is not the company’s responsibility, unless it happened to be a condition based on previous activity of mr. but according to the article, this was not the case. he could have been seeing a shrink because of personal problems, not related to work or problems incurred to work. when an individual leaves on a sick appt from the company, that time is on his time and not company time. makes you wonder who is wanting more money and why??
With a BAC of .43 I don’t know how he could have been at work before this appt. If he was at work with a BAC that high, there is no way he would not have appeared to be intoxicated. Even an acoholic will appear intoxicated at that level. If his BAC was really that high I’m surprised he was able to do anything.
This guy’s an obvious drunk who the company was attempting to help. He could have left work early and got soused on the way to his appointment. The employer should not be responsible for his bad judgment and character flaw. They’re looking for a deep pocket as usual.
More to this than IJ printed (of course)
Had UGS acted responsibly on the day of this accident, Mr. Weinstein would not have lost his family,” attorney Frank Guerra IV of San Antonio told the jury in Detroit in opening statements in a lawsuit filed by Gary Weinstein.
Guerra told the 10-member jury that coworkers at UGS Corp., now Siemens, in Livonia, knew or should have known that Thomas Wellinger, 54, of Farmington Hills, was in no condition to get into his SUV en route to a company-ordered doctor’s appointment to be treated for alcoholism.
Wellinger, a top UGS executive, never made it to the appointment. Around 3:30 p.m. on May 3, 2005, he rear-ended a Honda sedan, killing the driver, Judith Weinstein, 50, and her two young sons. Wellinger later pleaded no contest to second-degree murder charges and is serving a 19- to 30-year prison sentence for the accident.
I don’t see anything in this article about whether this was a company car or personal car. A BAP might have to respond to this accident if this was an executive and authorized driver under the policy. If it was a personal auto, it is a pretty thin case that a visit to a doctor was under the course and scope of employment. My guess is that it fell under Personal Auto and the limits were indadequate and exhausted so they are going after the BAP with Hired & Non Owned Liability and possible Umbrella.
…and Weinstein is an adult. Tragic but not UGS fault. No one will benefit from this but the attorney. How about being responsible for your actions? Put the blame where it belongs, not on UGS, not on the booze, not on the SUV but on the DRUNK DRIVER. The guy is a tragic drunk. Addict or not he chose to get into that SUV and this decisoin wiped out a family and no doubt destroyed more than 3 lives. Tragic and SICK but not UGS doing…
Jane you are right…..I am from the area and if you could have read about the amount of booze this guy had in the 72 hours before the accident ….it was amazing that he was even standing, much less able to insert a key into the ignition…..a trajic accident and Mr. Wellinger will have decades in prison to think about it. Probably not long enough to kick his addiction though.
well, if he reported to work drunk, then we have a problem because the company told him to go to the shrink… company ordered… now, granted if they wanted to prevent any of this, they should have driven him over there instead they allowed him to drive. their negligence for allowing this incident. now, if the lawyer was good, he’d go after the person or establishment that had served him the liquor prior to the incident! sounds to me like someone really likes big pockets..
…besides, how do you know he didn’t buy the bottle of whiskey and drink it in the bathroom? HE is at fault. HE is a sic pup and HE is at fault. Not the BOOZE or the store that sold it or the bar that served it. (unless the guy is falling down drunk then, yeah, enough is enough.) My point is, put the blame where the blame is due on the ALCOHOLIC.
I know Jane doesn’t like the tort system, but we are working with established law.
Like Chuck said, “if he reported to work drunk, then we have a problem because the company told him to go to the shrink… company ordered… now, granted if they wanted to prevent any of this, they should have driven him over there instead they allowed him to drive.”
If he did report to work that drunk, UGS is liable for millions.
Plus, it doesn’t take a great imagination why UGS had mandated the shrink. The company had noticed something wrong with his behavior (alcoholism).
This should be a pretty easy win if he showed up to work, especially with the added information that he had been on a 72 hour bender.
Typically I agree that personal responsibility should trump any other persons, entities, etc. when it comes to these situations. I am tired of the “it’s someone elses fault” logic that is applied to just about everything these days. But if ANYONE at his work knew that he was that drunk then they had a responsibility to him, others on the road, and their own conscious to keep him out of a car. We’re all adults. We know the consequences of drunk driving but the drunk doesn’t know it.
The concept of “general damages” aka “pain and suffering” might have some validity when a person survives an accident. However, why should the estate of a deceased that didn’t depend on him/her for financial support get rich quick? They all swear “it isn’t about the money” but we all know that _ullshit. In our small minded culture, people have been brainwashed by attorneys to believe that “accidents must = a lawsuit”. Why? MONEY. The idea that they’re getting “justice” or “punishing” the wrongdoer is equally _ullshit. The liability carrier pays. If the wrongdoes isn’t collectible or, God forbid doesn’t have high enough limits, they go find someone, anyone, who does so they can get MONEY. Is our society so pathetically myoptic that “justice” = MONEY?
If an award is to be made, why isn’t it channeled into something that would make a difference, like medical research or a charity? Since everyone agrees you can’t put a price on someone, why do we try? I’d be interested in your comments.
i agree, but you have to remember who is driving this bus — THE LAWYER, so his pockets get bigger. it’s xmas and he’s thinking instead of presents, dollars in his stocking and underneath that tree. it’s the ethics of these lawyers and that is what’s driving our courts to be logged jam.
Lawyers are the scourge of our society. If they closed all the law schools for 20 years, we would still have way too many. We are the most litigous society on earth. Unfortunately, most of our politicians are lawyers and look how screwed up the government is. This claim could have been settled for policy limits of the at fault driver instead of bringing the employer in which had no control over this guy’s actions.
well, we do know that it was apparently a company ordered for him to see the shrink.. you are right about those folks thinking that they are not responsible for their own actions… but remember, that this suit is brought about by the other party, who are looking for bigger pockets, whereas the lawyer is looking for more money to line his pockets… if that person who is at-fault, does not have a lot of money, i can’t blame them for going after more, but it should only be for the costs of funeral. any excessive should be paid only by the party at-fault.
The employer should not be held liable for the act of this employee. If the employer was told by employee he needed to leave to go to psychiatrist appointment then employer had every reason to believe the employee was going to see a doctor. When does employee responsibility start? Sounds by the story the employee then lied to his employer and stopped to drink prior to his appointment with a shrink. If the employee was indeed drinking on the job (say a company sponsored party) then left for dr. appt the drunks company should be held liable under their host liquor. However story seems to indicate employee told his company he was going to doctors appointment. If employee elected to have a few adult beverages in between work and doctors appt, the employee lied to employer. That’s gross negligence and employee should assume full responsibility along with the bar who served him, if indeed there is a bar involved. Sorry for the gentlemen who lost his wife and kid, that is indeed tragic. But the drunken killer should be held liable if he wasn’t drunk at work and lied to his employer to get out of work.