“It wasn’t the sole factor..” Give me a break! It’s these judges and loop holes in the law that’s leaching out the good in this country. The dude was almost twice the legal limit. Intoxicated? Denied. Should be that simple but that wouldn’t be fair to the drunkard. Gotta be fair! ..the system is so backwards.
Even though Ana might not say what she really believes in the event her husband is to ever find (that is if she is married . . .) himself in the same situation as Mr. Villa I think it is safe to say that the way the law was applied in this particular instance is a joke. Reducing the available workers’ comp benefits by 10% because Mr. Villa was intoxicated on the job, but because intoxication was not the “sole” reason for the accident is silly. Additionally, just because Mr. Villa’s co-workers testified that Mr. Villa did not display any overt signs of intoxication doesn’t mean that intoxication was not “sole” cause of the accident. The people of Las Cruces will have to pay for this man’s lack of self-respect and indifference towards workplace safety. Is that what you want your tax dollars going to?
Speaking for Ana, if that were her husband (a drunk garbage man) she would get drunk and divorce him. Supposed this guy was driving the garbage truck and got in an accident that killed your family and he got awarded benefits. Chew on that you liberal whacko ICU!
If the WC claim is to be adjusted based on the contribution that alcohol made to his injury – and if we’re consistent in the application of laws – wouldn’t every drunk driving injury or death need have the driver’s liability reduced when it’s not clear that alcohol is the sole cause? That’s what is puzzling to me.
Folks, keep in mind that this is a New Mexico decision. I have stopped reading New Mexico appellate court opinions and now go directly to the end of the case for the holding. I find that, no matter how ridiculous the plaintiff’s conduct might be, virtually 100% of the time the New Mexico court holds in favor of the plaintiff, assuming the plaintiff is an individual claiming some type of misfortune at the hands of an evil corporation or insurance company. I suggest that the state’s appellate justices stop wasting their valuable time on such pesky duties as reading the trial transcript or actual legal reasoning, and instead simply order a stamp that says “we find for the injured consumer / motorist / employee / worker / other category of plaintiff, and against the corporation / insurance company / other category of defendant.”
Who or what is responsible for the other 10% of the claim? The garbage can that got stuck? The chain that was projecting itself as 2 chains to the drunk? Villa needs to know so he can sue for the other 10%.
Also, if the supervisors in New Mexico garbage were to screen the collectors daily for being tequilla challenged, they wouldn’t have anyone left to work.
Larry Logic, my thoughts exactly. If he were driving and killed somebody, he’d be on trial for murder. Even if while driving, he wasn’t completely at fault for the accident, the alcohol would trump any other factors.
Secondly, how can any person (Judge or other) reasonably conclude that alcohol only contributed to 10%? A judge of whom does not likely have any training in root cause analysis but can just arbitrarily throw out “10%”. Why not 11% or 8%, let alone 30%, 50%, or 100%? Maybe the judge states this in the case which frankly, I don’t have the time nor interest to read. But what this judge is saying is that in his/her “opinion”, if the employee had no alcohol in his system that day, there is still a 90% chance this accident would have happened?
“It wasn’t the sole factor..” Give me a break! It’s these judges and loop holes in the law that’s leaching out the good in this country. The dude was almost twice the legal limit. Intoxicated? Denied. Should be that simple but that wouldn’t be fair to the drunkard. Gotta be fair! ..the system is so backwards.
Ana, If this was your husban you would not be saying this!
I C U,
Even though Ana might not say what she really believes in the event her husband is to ever find (that is if she is married . . .) himself in the same situation as Mr. Villa I think it is safe to say that the way the law was applied in this particular instance is a joke. Reducing the available workers’ comp benefits by 10% because Mr. Villa was intoxicated on the job, but because intoxication was not the “sole” reason for the accident is silly. Additionally, just because Mr. Villa’s co-workers testified that Mr. Villa did not display any overt signs of intoxication doesn’t mean that intoxication was not “sole” cause of the accident. The people of Las Cruces will have to pay for this man’s lack of self-respect and indifference towards workplace safety. Is that what you want your tax dollars going to?
Speaking for Ana, if that were her husband (a drunk garbage man) she would get drunk and divorce him. Supposed this guy was driving the garbage truck and got in an accident that killed your family and he got awarded benefits. Chew on that you liberal whacko ICU!
If the WC claim is to be adjusted based on the contribution that alcohol made to his injury – and if we’re consistent in the application of laws – wouldn’t every drunk driving injury or death need have the driver’s liability reduced when it’s not clear that alcohol is the sole cause? That’s what is puzzling to me.
So if the drunk was DRIVING the garbage truck and killed someone, I guess he would only be 10% RESPONSIBLE????
Folks, keep in mind that this is a New Mexico decision. I have stopped reading New Mexico appellate court opinions and now go directly to the end of the case for the holding. I find that, no matter how ridiculous the plaintiff’s conduct might be, virtually 100% of the time the New Mexico court holds in favor of the plaintiff, assuming the plaintiff is an individual claiming some type of misfortune at the hands of an evil corporation or insurance company. I suggest that the state’s appellate justices stop wasting their valuable time on such pesky duties as reading the trial transcript or actual legal reasoning, and instead simply order a stamp that says “we find for the injured consumer / motorist / employee / worker / other category of plaintiff, and against the corporation / insurance company / other category of defendant.”
Who or what is responsible for the other 10% of the claim? The garbage can that got stuck? The chain that was projecting itself as 2 chains to the drunk? Villa needs to know so he can sue for the other 10%.
Also, if the supervisors in New Mexico garbage were to screen the collectors daily for being tequilla challenged, they wouldn’t have anyone left to work.
Larry Logic, my thoughts exactly. If he were driving and killed somebody, he’d be on trial for murder. Even if while driving, he wasn’t completely at fault for the accident, the alcohol would trump any other factors.
Secondly, how can any person (Judge or other) reasonably conclude that alcohol only contributed to 10%? A judge of whom does not likely have any training in root cause analysis but can just arbitrarily throw out “10%”. Why not 11% or 8%, let alone 30%, 50%, or 100%? Maybe the judge states this in the case which frankly, I don’t have the time nor interest to read. But what this judge is saying is that in his/her “opinion”, if the employee had no alcohol in his system that day, there is still a 90% chance this accident would have happened?