Does the employee have a duty to get involved ?

[Hook686]

http://arkansasmatters.com/content/fulltext/news?cid=193131


McDonald's Employee Entitled to Worker's Comp?
Reported by: Lauren Trager, KARK 4 News
Friday, Feb 20, 2009 @05:39pm CST

Last August, a McDonald’s employee was shot after he intervened in a domestic fight.

He survived, but his employer’s insurer now says, they're not responsible.

After fighting for his life in the hospital, McDonald’s employee Nigel Haskett may now be fighting for reimbursement of his nearly $300,000 worth medical bills.

On surveillance tape of the day of the incident, a man apparently slaps a woman in the face. With seconds Haskett tackles him. Seconds after Haskett re-enters the store and then collapses. Police say he was shot multiple times.

A judge in the criminal proceedings called Haskett a hero.

But now, the insurance agency representing McDonald’s says he doesn't qualify for Worker's Compensation in this incident.

And the franchise owner of that McDonald’s says: don't jump to conclusions.

"We are all grateful to Nigel and that's why it is so unfortunate that he's having a difficult time with the insurance claim…however, the fact of the matter is that I do not have control over whether my employee's claim is paid by Worker's Compensation. It is my understanding that there has not been a final determination by the Arkansas Worker's Compensation Commission. I am taking this very seriously, and doing what I can to help and I hope his claim will come to a quick resolution and the right thing will be done for my employee."

But Haskett's attorney says he's entitled to the money, and will fight the insurance company for it in court.

"They do everything they can not to pay a client. That's what we have here. They just try to get out of paying any way they can," said Haskett’s attorney Philip Wilson.

There is a process to filing this claim and only the first part has been denied. The case will now go before a judge, then possibly the worker's comp commission. It could even be appealed to the Supreme Court.

I support the perspective of staying out of a fight that does not directly impact me, or mine. Others here have voiced the view of being the 'Sheep dog', that protects the herd.

I can imagine the duality to follow, but am wonderig if any views change as a consequence to this case ??

[BillCA]

Without knowing what kind of assault was going on, it's difficult to say whether the employee's actions went overboard or not.

I think one reason we have more crime than we should is because of companies like this insurance company. There was a story not long ago about a pizza parlor hold-up where just after closing, an employee leaving the store was forced back inside at gunpoint for the heist. During the robbery, believing the robbers would kill him and the manager, he grabbed one robber's gun and was shot in the stomach. The insurance company claimed he was "on his own time" because he'd punched out. This kind of weasel-mindedness to preserve profits while ignoring the moral imperative to preserve one's own life and/or stop crime is disgusting.

I'm not saying the insurance companies should always indemnify people for playing the hero. But if the "domestic violence" incident involved repeated blows, I think they should have paid out the claim. If nothing else, it sets a community expectation that such behavior isn't tolerated in that town.

I'd like to know if the insurance company is claiming that the employee "voluntarily" put himself in harms way, doing something not required of him, and thus isn't eligible. Would they also not pay him for his injuries if a coworker's clothing caught fire and he "voluntarily" helped beat out the flames? I think not. Would they not pay the claim if he tackled the same man for assaulting a female employee sweeping the floor?

The lawyers for this insurance company (and arguably the insurance company executives), IMO, show their contempt for any moral values whatsoever.

[grumpybutt]

Vary simple your employer your insurance company care about one thing and one thing only, well two things, them selves and money, sadly you are dispensable. :mad::o:confused:

[SKULLANDCROSSBONES65]

G'day. Is the insurance policy held by the employer or the employee? Who is liable, the employer the insurance Co. or the BG? Has the employer provided a safe workplace? If the insurance company wont pay out on the employers claim does this make the employer any less liable. (the employer is liable, that is why they have insurance.)
I would think that the employer is liable, the insurance Co. is up for the pay out, and the BG is guilty of an offence.

[Keltyke]

First, I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I work for an insurance company. However, I do know a little.

Workman's Comp will usually only pay off if the injury was sustained "in the execution of the employee's normal duties." Unless "maintain order" is in the Employee Manual, breaking up domestic fights is clearly not part of a McDonald's employee's job description.

I think he's SOL.

Secondly, what he did was admirable on the surface, but really dumb deep down. He walked into a situation he knew nothing about. "Third person defense" is a clause in most community laws, but is hardly a license to go out and play hero. In fact, as seen here, it can be extremely dangerous. Although I carry, and the "third party" defense is in our laws here in SC, I would have NEVER interfered in that instance. My actions would have been to call 911, and get good descriptions of the combatants and a good report of what happened for the LEOs when they showed up.

You're always on shaky ground concerning safety and legality when you step into a situation that doesn't initially involve you. The man slapped the woman. I'm assuming a lot here. I assume no weapon was shown at that time. I assume the woman wasn't being held and could have gotten away from her assailant. From the report, the woman was not "in imminent fear of her life or grave bodily injury." Absolutely NO cause to interfere, except for the sake of heroics. That judge, IMO, is an idiot. His praise for the employee will only encourage others to act in a similar manner, possibly getting them into the same trouble this young man is in now.

We are not vigilantes, we are not LEOs. We carry a weapon for only one reason - to defend our life or the life of a loved one. Period.

Don't get me wrong, I DO understand what motivated this guy. However, in this instance, his heart was in the right place, but his mind wasn't.

[OldMarksman]

Gerald, you nailed it.

[DieHard06]

Fighting back in the defense of another is not vigilanteism. The judge was right to call him a hero (his employer called him a hero as well, but denied encouraging such behavior) as what he did was heroic. However, heroic actions always carry with them a great risk and this young man paid the price. Everyone knows this. This article is missing a lot of information and even a little misinformation. The Man did not "slap" the woman he full out punched her in the eye according to one source.
http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/UPDATE-Police-release-name-of-suspect-in/BB2-SY-qIkquC9Tv744r0A.cspx

I do not see anything wrong with breaking up a fight, but I would not have "tackled" or shoved this guy out the door like the employee did. Also, calling the police first would have been the best option. Perhaps it happened too fast. I don't know, they don't give enough information about the circumstances leading up to this event.

We are not vigilantes, we are not LEOs. We carry a weapon for only one reason - to defend our life or the life of a loved one. Period.


I disagree with your blanket statement. There are times when defending others around you, especially when it also means defending yourself, are the right course of action. My firearm is for defending whomever I choose to defend within the legal realm of the law. To say that I have to defend everyone around me is wrong just as saying that I can only defend myself and my loved ones.

[The Great Mahoo]

As I see it, there are several things here.

On surveillance tape of the day of the incident, a man apparently slaps a woman in the face. Within seconds Haskett tackles him. Seconds after Haskett re-enters the store and then collapses. Police say he was shot multiple times.

One, based on the article, the employee seems to have over-reacted. I'm not saying he should not have intervened at all, but it seems he tackled the boyfriend and proceeds to follow the guy outside where he is shot. (my interpretation based on the article, may or maynot what happened). In my oppinion, simply speaking against the boyfriend may have sufficed; if he had escalated it, it may be another matter.

Two. I in no way see this as a work-related issue, but perhaps one of civil decency. Sure, to some extent, employees are to help maintain order within their place of work. This can be done by asking said offender to leave or calling the police. An employee has no business to attack someone for any reason (again, my interpretation) and has now become the agressor by doing so. As such, I see no reason why the company's insurance should be held liable at all.

Third. I see little application from this case to one for concealed carry holders, other than not to unlawfully attack people for a third party's benefit. Frankly, if the employee did initate the attack against the boyfriend, the boyfriend could verywell have been acting in self defense in shooting the employee.

One must always consider when and why to step in to aid another. I've been brought up on the school of thought that "evil prevails when good people do nothing" and think that a confrontation isn't out of line in this case. Assaulting the boyfriend back hardly seems appropriate, though. However, your actions are your responsibility, so you must decide on what grounds you are acting, and what you are willing to accept in doing so.

[DieHard06]

I agree with your post Great Mahoo. I wonder why he chose to act so aggressively, and that is why I wonder what happened just before the events shown in the security video clip.

[Kleinzeit]

I just saw this reported on Fox News. The anchor insisted repeatedly on the heroics of the employee, and launched a very angry attack at McDonalds. She holds them entirely responsible for any failure to see the employee compensated. "I am angry," she said. "This is a disgrace."

I wonder what all this does for the public perception of guns? I like The Great Mahoo's comments:

An employee has no business to attack someone for any reason (again, my interpretation) and has now become the agressor by doing so. ...

Frankly, if the employee did initate the attack against the boyfriend, the boyfriend could verywell have been acting in self defense in shooting the employee.

I'm guessing the boyfriend saw himself as the victim of an assault. I wonder if his gun was legal? I wonder where the law will stand on this if/when he is arrested? Of course, he's a BG for beating on his girlfriend. But that doesn't mean that the discussion is over in respect to his use of a firearm.

[vranasaurus]

It's one thing to call the police and ask the man to stop hitting the woman and to leave your store. Those would be appropriate actions.

Slapping a woman in the face is not an appropriate behavior but it is not life threatening. If the man had assaulted(or attempted to) the women in a way that could have resulted in serious injury or death then intervening in the manner this man did would certainly be justified. In the case of a simple assault one can afford to wait for the police to arrive.

[luvsasmith]

It is not your duty to get involved. That is what police are for.

[chris in va]

It is not your duty to get involved. That is what police are for.

Hmm. So as we all know LE response times are measured in minutes. A guy is stabbing a woman in a parking lot, with her screaming for help.

No involvement? BTW this actually happened, and yes a bystander got involved.

[Kleinzeit]

It is not your duty to get involved in a non-life-threatening situation.

[chris in va]

Exactly. Of course, getting beat all to heck could also be considered 'non life threatening' too. Virginia has a 'danger to life and limb' clause for good reason.

I certainly hope we wouldn't just stand around and watch someone beat the tar out of an innocent bystander.

[Kleinzeit]

has a 'danger to life and limb' clause for good reason.

Good point.

[Keltyke]

A guy is stabbing a woman in a parking lot, with her screaming for help.

You're comparing apples to oranges. A stabbing is a LOT different than a slap in the face.

[Kleinzeit]

You're comparing apples to oranges. A stabbing is a LOT different than a slap in the face.

I think chris in va was just responding to the comment about us having NO duty to get involved and that the protection of others is always a matter for the police.

[Dave P]

One used to have a moral obligation to protect those that can't protect themselves: women, children, the elderly.

I think the man should be treated as a hero.

[Kleinzeit]

One used to have a moral obligation to protect those that can't protect themselves: women, children, the elderly.

I don't think that is in doubt. The question is whether he exercised that moral obligation in an effective way. He did not.

[vranasaurus]

You can't react emotionally in situations like this. Do I think it is wrong as hell to hit a women? Yes I do, but that doesn't mean I am going to get involved unless there is a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Unless there is that threat I will wait for the police because intervening in a minor assault can only end badly for me.

[The Great Mahoo]

One used to have a moral obligation to protect those that can't protect themselves: women, children, the elderly.
I don't think that is in doubt. The question is whether he exercised that moral obligation in an effective way. He did not.

Exactly. I think he could have stepped in, told him that was unacceptable and even called the police, but tackling the man seems unreasonable for slapping someone.

[luvsasmith]

I said "DUTY" as in LEGAL DUTY. As far as SHOULD an individual get involved, of course.

[Kleinzeit]

I said "DUTY" as in LEGAL DUTY. As far as SHOULD an individual get involved, of course.

Right. It doesn't seem that this employee had any duty, in that sense, to get involved at all. Like Keltyke said,

Unless "maintain order" is in the Employee Manual, breaking up domestic fights is clearly not part of a McDonald's employee's job description.

I don't think I can blame the insurance company for resisting this one. And I'm kind of mad at Fox News for trying to manipulate public opinion into a lather of fury at McDonalds to shame them into footing the hospital bill. I do hope though that McDonalds does make a substantial contribution to a private collection being taken up for him. He might have acted thoughtlessly, but he meant well, and shouldn't have his life ruined over this.

Please keep us posted, all, as the story develops. I'm still interested in hearing the shooter's story.

[Double Naught Spy]

We are not vigilantes, we are not LEOs. We carry a weapon for only one reason - to defend our life or the life of a loved one. Period.

What do you think being a vigilante means? Vigilantes work outside of the law. It is no more vigilanteism to defend a stranger from a threat than it is to defend a loved one from a threat, something you support.

You may choose to carry a gun only for the purpose of protecting yourself and your loved ones and that is fine as your call, but don't speak for the rest of us.

[overkill556x45]

Does the employee have a duty to intervene? NO. In fact, my last civilian employer had a policy which was just the opposite. Bad stuff goes down and you call 911 and make note of anything they might need to know (car make/model, time of offense, etc). Definitely do not get in the middle of it.
My previous experience is that of closing with and destroying the enemy on the field of battle. I am not afraid of a fight, but here in the US--unarmed, unarmored, and with no particular authority--my ability to help others and detain or stop the bad guys is conspicuously constrained. Add that on to a non-intervention company policy and the only option you have left is to call 911 and hope for the best.

I'll let the L.E. experts wrangle this one. All chest thumping aside (if I had my CCW, I'd have lit that guy up kind of talk), most employers have a NO GUNS policy, making the CCW option moot. If my only weapon is a spatula (or a box cutter for my old job), I'm calling 911 and letting the cops sort it out.

[TEDDY]

the courts have held that the police are not required to respond but to KEEP THE PEACE.and many accasions have accured where people died because of lack of police reponses.I would imagine the employeewould be expected to remove trouble makers from the property to prevent damage to the business.
now how would respond if the BG had beat the woman to death while waiting the 2/3 hrs for response from police.It has happened more than once.seems tho something bad was going to happen as the BG had a gun and was willing to use it.:rolleyes:

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

I am not in the insurance industry and have no interest in that scenario at all.

Worker's comp is for people who get hurt in the normal line of duty. If a McD's employee trips in the kitchen and breaks their arm that is covered.

Hero action is not covered under workman's comp, and probably was actually against company policy. If that case is ruled in favor of the employee there'll be questions as to what the company's obligation is to employees and their patrons as well.

If an employee is killed in a robbery do they owe anything to the beneficiary of the employee? Does workman's comp? If an employee prevents a robbery by shooting a bad guy and inadvertently hits a customer by either over penetration or just a bad shot does the company or workman's comp owe the customer? That's what insurance companies are for. And unfortunately lawyers too.

Don't get me wrong, the guy was heroic and acted on more guts than a lot of people have. But that is an act of personal sacrifice that is not covered specifically under workmen's comp. If that guy had insurance and benefits he has insurance coverage that should pick up a lot of medical expenses, maybe sick time/vacation time and definitely FMLA time to secure his job.

As far as the employee having an obligation to intervene? Absolutely not. We all have job descriptions and duties spelled out pretty clearly. If we decide to act on the behalf of a patron or a friend that is a personal decision. Completely. There'll be macho guys, mall ninjas, and protector of sheeple that say differently but the reality is we owe and are obliged only what we are willing to give as individuals.

[longcoldwinter]

No good deed goes unpunished.

[wishin]

1. The employee was wrong to intervene. (Never get involved in a domestic dispute - employee or not).

2. The hero was right to intervene. (At an assumed risk for doing something stupid).

3. Workers comp should not have to pay med expenses.(They always look for a way out anyway).

4. The employer should step up and pay med expenses. (Great PR).

5. The hero should be commended. (A parade would be nice).

6. Too bad he didn't shoot the SOB instead of tackling him. (Then there would really be an outcry from the anti-gun idiots).


7. All fast food employees should be issued ARs. (make up for low wages).

All tongue-in-cheek of course!!

[vranasaurus]

now how would respond if the BG had beat the woman to death while waiting the 2/3 hrs for response from police.It has happened more than once.seems tho something bad was going to happen as the BG had a gun and was willing to use it.

A simple domestic abuse situation does not normally end with someone being beaten to death.

He should have called the police, waited, and monitored the situation. If it appeared that the women was in danger of serious bodily injury or death then intervening would have been appropriate. Getting slapped doesn't equate to either of those possibilities. No one said that he simply had to make a decision to not get involved and go about his day never reexamining the situation and changing his response. As the situation changes so should the response.

Getting involved should be your last resort and only when it appears that doing nothing could result in serious injury or death.

[BillCA]

Again, I consider this invokes a question regarding not heroics but expectations of the people who make up our socitety.

Claims that the worker did something that's "not part of his job" fail, IMO, utterly. Workers at McD's are burger flippers, bottle washers, cashiers and floor sweepers as part of their duties. Yet, if Emilita's clothing catches on fire after contacting the grill and another employee is burned beating out the fire with his hands, Worker's Comp pays for injuries to both parties. I know this for a fact.

Nothing in the employee's duties require these heroic actions. Nothing in the employee handbook suggests an action should've been taken. There's no law that requires it. Yet Worker's Comp paid off on the claim.

The primary question is how far can or should the employee go? Did this employee overstep the limits of reasonable actions? Before you say yes...

A man who will beat his wife or a child, especially in public, deserves to be stopped by force. The application of the force should be proportionate, of course. Certainly a punch to the snoot is warranted, if nothing else to let him know such behavior has its consequences. But cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.

He has certainly comitted a crime again a person - a family member at that, but what about you? Or the others nearby? Have you and they not had their peace disturbed? If no one intervenes, what does that teach our children who witness the act? That no individuals in our society have the testicular fortitude to stand up for the weak and the oppressed?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke

And what of the people like him who find no one willing to to interfere? Or even comment? Does not the silence and lack of action embolden his actions, knowing as he does it will take, at best, long minutes before police arrive? His actions are no better than the thief or robber who's actions declare their contempt by the rules we live by. And if those ordinary rules are held in contempt by him, so are all those who obey those rules. His assault on a family member is a public declaration that a person's safety is dependent upon his whim.[1]

The guiding principle here should be that the young man acted in the interest of protecting a woman[2] from abuse and physical harm. The difference, if any, between punching this loathesome male in the snotlocker and tackling him is a testament to the employee's reluctance to harm him.

Some may side with the insurance company who can find a way to weasel out of covering him for his action. But I look at their refusal as hammering another nail in the coffin of a civil society over not principle, but of greed.


[1] In previous generations it would not be unusual for nearly all the nearby men to publicly confront the man for assaulting his wife. Physical force may or may not have been used, but certainly shame and scorn were heaped upon him along with threats of the police needing a mop and bucket to get him to jail.
[2] The same can be applied to protecting a child, the eldery or disabled. These are people unable to defend themselves.

[grumpybutt]

In most of the post it seems to be like the old saying "Let George do it" unless the shoes on the other foot, than you're looking for help in any direction. It's amazing how some people seem to think they are shadowed by an LEO when in need. :rolleyes:

[renegadebuck]

I was a bouncer in college and usually, the sooner you can intervene the better and less violent the outcome. That said, tackling the BG wasn't the way to go about it. If I had been there, I would have stepped up, as even though women can and do push your worst buttons, most cannot stand with a man in a fight. The GG was right to react, but went about it the wrong way. Saying what would or would not have happened is mute since the GG stepped up. Most replies to this situation are assuming that it would have ended with the punch/slap. Had it escalated, there's no telling how violent it would or would not have become and how much force would have been necessary to stop it.

[Double Naught Spy]

4. The employer should step up and pay med expenses. (Great PR).

The owner of the franchise should come up with $300K? I highly doubt the PR would be that good. It would be nice if the employer helped, but covering everything is a bit overboard. $300K is a huge chunk of change, even for a McDonald's like this.

While it might be okay PR for a brief while if the employer came up with the cash, maybe the intended victim's family should come up with the $ instead as she was the one who was saved?


No good deed goes unpunished.

The employee isn't being punished for his good deed. He simply is not receiving the benefit of help from his employer's workers comp insurance as the injury did not come as a result of doing his job. As such, he doesn't qualify for the benefit.

[Kleinzeit]

Does not the silence and lack of action embolden his actions

I don't think anyone is advocating silence and a lack of action.

[DieHard06]

A good post with some excellent points BillCA. It's good to hear various points of view on this incident.

[Bud Helms]

Moving this to L&CR.

[Socrates]

First: NEVER get involved in a gunfight without a gun.
ALWAYS assume a dirtbag is armed, and be ready to respond.

The days of a good old fist fight being the end of it are gone.
Anyone out of control enough to slug his girlfriend is likely to be very dangerous.

The employee does not have a duty to intervene, unless he's off duty LEO. That's what 911 is for.

As for the insurance company, they are the blight of our society. That said, Workmanscomp ALWAYS denies claims, and, you have to hire a lawyer to sue for the money. You win most of the time. A good lawyer should win this one, since, I'm sure Macs has a clause in their 'duties' that goes something like, 'any other assigned, or required tasks'. In other words, unless you are committing a crime, on company property, on the clock, you are doing your 'duties'.

[shortwave]

Employee just needed to be alittle more 'streetsmart' in this situation. If he were going to get involved he should have approached things a bit different. In perps state of mind, a few 'sweet-nothings' whispered to perp surely would have caused perp to attack employee. Employee(person) has a right to defend themselves on or off job;).

[longcoldwinter]

DoubleNaught, I never said workmans comp should pay. Just pointing out the unfortunate fact that in todays society if you step up to help out someone else in distress, society has a way of making sure you come out worse off.

Business owners and insurance companies will due every thing in there power to make sure they dont pay out any cash for your actions and the local DA is likely make your life miserable if there is any gray areas to your actions. Hell if you use a gun your life will be made miserable even if your actions are lily white. Heaven forbid you accidently hurt the person your trying to help or damage there property, instant sue.

[Double Naught Spy]

DoubleNaught, I never said workmans comp should pay. Just pointing out the unfortunate fact that in todays society if you step up to help out someone else in distress, society has a way of making sure you come out worse off.

But society did not make the employee worse off.

Business owners and insurance companies will due every thing in there power to make sure they dont pay out any cash for your actions and the local DA is likely make your life miserable if there is any gray areas to your actions.

There was no reason for the business owner or the insurance company to pay for the employee's actions, so why are you making them out to be bad guys here? The employee had no duty to intervene and they have no duty to pay for his actions.

The DA isn't prosecuting him or doing anything bad to him either, so why are you making the DA look bad here?

Hell if you use a gun your life will be made miserable even if your actions are lily white.

A gun and so the whole gun issue is moot in this case.

[longcoldwinter]

DN this hero is being punished/rewarded for his actions. His reward is being called a "hero" by some in society as well as gaining what ever moral comfort he may be getting from doing the "right thing". As for his punishment well the same society sure is not lining up to pay his medical bills now are they.

That's what you get when you go to defend another person. You do a good deed, you put yourself on the hook for cripping finacial ruin and possible legal trouble. In this case the hero is luckly so far hes not getting sued or arrested, its not always like that.

[quick]

"It is not your duty to get involved in a non-life-threatening situation."

I would say that this statement alone is one of the major problems with our country. It is our community, our neighborhood. If I saw a man slap a lady you better believe I would be right in the middle. Not to be some hero, but as a matter of upbringing and morals.

It makes me want to puke when I hear "be a good witness" yes, but the message coveys to people not to get involved, stay in their bubble.

Vent over

Rick

[Old Wanderer]

I have to jump in here...

1. Sue the SOB that shot him, and hound him till the day he dies....

2. Get a junk yard dog type attorney and go after the employers insurance company.

This very same thing almost happened to me back in the 70's. I was working as a Pilot/Bodyguard in Columbia. One Saturday afternoon I was leaving a resturant. Walking through the parking lot to my car I came upon a Man holding a woman by the throat with one hand whith her head against a car, and smashing it with his fist...blood was everywhere. I grabbed him and proceeded to start breaking a few painful bones when BANG and a shot whisles by my head....hear laying on the ground was the woman that could only see out of one eye holding a revolver and saying in Spanish "Leave my husband alone".

I swung the man beteen us and gave the woman a karatee kick to her one good eye and dropped her husband on top of her....

Would I interveen again.....proabably...but watch the woman this time.

[Double Naught Spy]

DN this hero is being punished/rewarded for his actions. His reward is being called a "hero" by some in society as well as gaining what ever moral comfort he may be getting from doing the "right thing". As for his punishment well the same society sure is not lining up to pay his medical bills now are they.

Because society is not doing something for this guy that society has no obligation to do then it is punishment? You have got to be kidding me. I am continually amazed by the folks who think society owes them something like this and that if society does not pay up, that they are being wronged by society.

So for y'all that think society should be covering this guy's medical bills, how much money have you sent him? If just 300 of you will write out a $1000 check, he will be in the clear, but you aren't likely to do that, are you?

I have a couple of clues for y'all, society is going to pay a lot of the hero's bills. The hero isn't going to pay them and so the loss has to be made up elsewhere, just like with other indigents who get medical care and cannot pay.

2. Get a junk yard dog type attorney and go after the employers insurance company.
And on what grounds would you sue?

[Kleinzeit]

"It is not your duty to get involved in a non-life-threatening situation."

I would say that this statement alone is one of the major problems with our country. It is our community, our neighborhood. If I saw a man slap a lady you better believe I would be right in the middle.

Let's get some clarity here. Not one person in this thread has said that we should not get involved at all.

NOT ONE.

If you ask me, one of the major problems with this country is people who have no sense of proportion. You have here, right in front of you, a very clear picture of what can happen when someone decides to throw themselves "right in the middle." It's a reasonable guess that this guy has slapped his girlfriend before, and that he's going to slap her again. Tackling him has probably not had much impact on that. I doubt it has made the guy go home and apologize to his girl and mend his ways. All it's done is allowed the employee to feel good about his masculinity and gotten him shot in the gut.

Woo hoo.

A call to the police, getting vehicle registration, etc. might have really accomplished something. There is no guarantee it would have, of course. But acting like Chuck Norris doesn't seem to have done much to help the neighborhood, does it? We have a badly injured employee who may never recover his health and may have a greatly reduced quality of life and length of life, and an agitated shooter at large, and people furious at the store manager as if this were all his fault, and distressed citizens who don't feel safe taking their kids to that McDonald's because there was a shooting there, and people picketing the company (which employs people from the neighborhood, whose job security may be threatened by loss of business) because the media has got them in a lather of protest, and alarm in the community because the guy is still out there, and the employee's family members in a state of distress, and the other employees feeling unsafe about going back to work, and family members of the other employees in a state of distress because their sons/daughters/sisters/brothers/nephews etc. etc. were so close to a shooting, and yet another incident giving fuel to the anti-gunners. And so on. And it all started with a slap!

Well done, Mr. Chuck Norris Hero Guy. I feel so much safer now.

[quick]

Again that's why it was a vent. Would I start throwing the guy a beating? I don't know? Would I jump in? yes....... The quote was aimed at the general attitude of people now days. I think this can be argued so many ways it's not even funny. But the "be a good witness" saying is true but most people stop there. I would hope that if the day ever comes when I need someone to step in...or my daughter needs help, that there are good people to step in.

[Kleinzeit]

I would hope that if the day ever comes when I need someone to step in...or my daughter needs help, that there are good people to step in.

I'm with you there.

[ilbob]

The insurance company claimed he was "on his own time" because he'd punched out.
Once he is off the clock, he is off the clock.

While this sounds like the insurance company is being weaselly, really they are just abiding by the terms of the contract they have to provide WC insurance.

It is the same reason that many employers require employees to punch out if they leave the place of employment on personal business (such as lunch).

It is not the employer's fault if someone gets in an auto accident while he is at lunch, anymore than it is the employer's fault that an employee punched out, left the premises and than came back at gun point. At least it is not a WC case. You might be able to argue it from another angle, but it is not WC.

[Double Naught Spy]

ibob, I missed it. Where was it said that the employee has punched out or otherwise was off the clock?

[spacemanspiff]

There are certain levels of response that are appropiate.

Call the police? Yes.

Jump the attacker and lay the smack down? No.

Or maybe you intervene enough so the attack is stopped? Yes.

To date, I have.....:

1. Responded to a fight across the street from my bar, my partner-in-crime at my side, in order to support another one of our bouncers who stepped in on a five vs one battle. Were we covered by our bars insurance? No. But there was no way I was going to let one of my coworkers go into that without backup.

2. Responded to a fight in the parking lot behind the bar, used pepper spray on both combatants.

3. Watched an altercation in the street in front of the bar, between two on one, the sole combatant fought both off, and clearly was the victor. One of his attackers fled, the other was on the ground. We stepped in when the victor started to stomp the guys head into the pavement. Not on our property, but our consciences wouldnt let us watch someone get seriously injured.

4. Responded to a fight outside a convention center, a crowded sidewalk, 6 security tried breaking up a fight, which turned into the combatants friends trying to jump the security. My manager specifically forbid us to go out and assist, (the 6 were on a different crew, hired privately by the events organizers), my conscience wouldnt let me just stand by and watch because my employers insurance wouldnt cover me if I got injured.

There are some things that as a human being, I must abide by. If I am able to stop someone from getting hurt, I will. If I can prevent a crime from occurring, I will. I dont care what my employer says, or if they fire me. I can get another job. I can't get another conscience though.