That is awful.

There is no corner of hell hot enough for the jerkwad manager that made this decision.

Oh come on. When money is involved NOTHING should surprise you. People will do anything to get it and anything to get out of not giving it.

Now, start writing letters to these boneheads.

Oh. There's something wrong with my previous post. I messed up a sentence but good!

The store is Dollar Tree. A corporation that makes money hand over fist by taking advantage of people just like her.

Good god, what an absolutely terrible story. Sick indeed.

I read a story in my local paper about how a univeristy cancelled fund raising for CF because it wasn't a racially diverse disease.

The link is probably on fark somewhere but I'm too lazy to look.

So this doesn't surprise me at all.

An insurance company attempting to get out of a claim? But, nooooo.

RetroGnome: I read a story in my local paper about how a univeristy cancelled fund raising for CF because it wasn't a racially diverse disease.

The link is probably on fark somewhere but I'm too lazy to look.


Here it is (pops)

Murdering a stranger in cold blood with a racial motive is by definition an impersonal act. What claims manager was actually dumb enough to deny this claim? Times must be tight at Dollar Tree, and they're about to get tighter.

I wish a most thorough and extensive legal ass-raping on every guilty party involved.

Right on with the SICK tag, subby.

Next time I need some more crap, I'll be sure to go to BigLots.

The sad part is the pain the jackass who had this bright idea is causing a grieving woman and her grandson.

It's not Dollar Tree's decision, it's Specialty Risk's decision. Specialty Risk's parent company is The Hartford, which just decided to be a S&L so it can get a piece of the federal bailout package. That company is scum.

Oh please, grow up people. If she didn't die as a result of her employment, they don't get the cash.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Oh please, grow up people. If she didn't die as a result of her employment, they don't get the cash.

She did die as a result of her employment- the store was targeted for violence; she died.

Intervening torts defeat causation ergo no workman's comp for you

Lorelle: This is disgusting.

seconded

sloppy shoes: SpeshilEdjukashin: Oh please, grow up people. If she didn't die as a result of her employment, they don't get the cash.

She did die as a result of her employment- the store was targeted for violence; she died.

The story says he wanted to kill a black person. If he was robbing the store and killed her, they would have to pay. If he went down the street looking for a black person to kill and the first one he saw just happened to work there, they don't have to pay.

Was the personal connection the knife that was in between the killer's hand and her body?

Wait, why do we care about the victim's workers compensation?

If the family needs money they can sue whoever was at fault, but workers comp is for injured employees who need to keep paying bills. This one doesnt.

Nothing racial involved, I just don't see how a murder means the employer should give money to the family!

I'm in a lawsuit with SRS because they don't want to pay my workmans comp claim... so I'm getting a real kick out of this.

Seriously... they will do EVERYTHING to avoid paying.
They didn't pay my ER bills. So the bills came to my house. My lawyer said that if I didn't contest those bills within 30 days from the date of mailing, then SRS would have been off the hook for it.
Then they sent me a letter saying they'd accepted my claim but then in the fine print it said that the scope of their responsibility was limited to the following which were caused by the accident... and then listed a couple of things which were NOT what my injuries are. Again, if I didn't contest it and go to court... I accept by default and they're off the hook for all of the other injuries that they didn't list.

Farking bastards.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Oh please, grow up people. If she didn't die as a result of her employment, they don't get the cash.

8/10

Not bad, but too short.

Zel: Wait, why do we care about the victim's workers compensation?

If the family needs money they can sue whoever was at fault, but workers comp is for injured employees who need to keep paying bills. This one doesnt.

Nothing racial involved, I just don't see how a murder means the employer should give money to the family!

She's probably better off without getting workman's comp because it generally sets a price cap on what you can win depending on the nature of the injury. Now she can sue the murderer for lost wages, the value of the life, IIED, NIED, negligence etc.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Oh please, grow up people. If she didn't die as a result of her employment, they don't get the cash.

working at this store was inherently dangerous to some of its enployees, and the store did not do anything to protect its employees or diminish the risk

IANAL

I think their prospective lawyer just had a big enough orgasm to pass out. Multi-million dollar settlement here they come.

CrankMyBlueSax: There is no corner of hell hot enough for the jerkwad manager that made this decision.

No, but waking up alone and bound in the murderer's cell with black skin would be a good start.

Kanemano: SpeshilEdjukashin: Oh please, grow up people. If she didn't die as a result of her employment, they don't get the cash.

working at this store was inherently dangerous to some of its enployees, and the store did not do anything to protect its employees or diminish the risk

IANAL

This is what I imagine would happen. I would think there's a reasonable expectation of safety when taking a job. However, I don't think that falls under Worker's Compensation.

Studson: Intervening torts defeat causation ergo no workman's comp for you

Er...no. Put the casebook down for a moment because you're confusing and misusing elements of common law tort liability in a situation involving worker's compensation, a statutory creation.

Zel: Wait, why do we care about the victim's workers compensation?

If the family needs money they can sue whoever was at fault, but workers comp is for injured employees who need to keep paying bills. This one doesnt.


See, the problem is that you're wrong. Worker's compensation is to replace the earning power of said worker. Death benefits are part of that. And the child of this worker still needs to be supported. That's where worker's comp comes in.

wow insta-green and rightly so.

but workers comp is for injured employees who need to keep paying bills. This one doesnt.

Tell that to her son and i'm sure he'll understand and surely not resort to stealing or robbing to bring himself out of the shiathole that is his life now

Studson: Zel: Wait, why do we care about the victim's workers compensation?

If the family needs money they can sue whoever was at fault, but workers comp is for injured employees who need to keep paying bills. This one doesnt.

Nothing racial involved, I just don't see how a murder means the employer should give money to the family!

She's probably better off without getting workman's comp because it generally sets a price cap on what you can win depending on the nature of the injury. Now she can sue the murderer for lost wages, the value of the life, IIED, NIED, negligence etc.

And lets suppose they get a 4 million dollar judgment. How are they going to collect? The guy was at a dollar store. I am guessing he is pretty much judgment proof.

Getting 500k through workers compensation is better than collecting nothing on a 4 million dollar judgment.

*checks Studson's profile*

Ah, that explains it. 1L I take it?

SpeshilEdjukashin: sloppy shoes: SpeshilEdjukashin: Oh please, grow up people. If she didn't die as a result of her employment, they don't get the cash.

She did die as a result of her employment- the store was targeted for violence; she died.

The story says he wanted to kill a black person. If he was robbing the store and killed her, they would have to pay. If he went down the street looking for a black person to kill and the first one he saw just happened to work there, they don't have to pay.

Regardless of whether they "have to" or not, I'd still say it's pretty horrible. Someone died in the midst of service to their company and left behind a son. The manager, superviser, or whomever needs to man up.

/submitter

RetroGnome: I read a story in my local paper about how a univeristy cancelled fund raising for CF because it wasn't a racially diverse disease.

The link is probably on fark somewhere but I'm too lazy to look.

So this doesn't surprise me at all.

Wanna bet they still allow sickle cell research?

But seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if this is settled out of court for some outrageous sum, and it should. IMHO they should have paid the claim, any decision that could reult in a lawsuit should be carefully looked at, even if it's just a money issue, because this insurance company could probably get sued for many times more than the initial claim, due to pain and suffering.

/IANAL
//that sounds dirty...

href="http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=4045814&IDComment=4 6650 213#c46650213">Lupercanalius Assbarnacle: Zel: Wait, why do we care about the victim's workers compensation?

If the family needs money they can sue whoever was at fault, but workers comp is for injured employees who need to keep paying bills. This one doesnt.


See, the problem is that you're wrong. Worker's compensation is to replace the earning power of said worker. Death benefits are part of that. And the child of this worker still needs to be supported. That's where worker's comp comes in.


Interesting and correct observation. But now the question is, for how long are they to provide these benefits? Clearly a job at a dollar store isn't a career path. So, a year? Three? For ever? What was their annual turn over rate?

gopher321: "But the law also allows benefits to be denied if the death stemmed from a personal connection between the victim and the attacker, such as a husband who kills his wife on company grounds."

Why the hell would this be allowed by law in the first place?

Because a company should not be held liable for the personal, off-the-clock actions of its employees. If you are murdered because you're *you*, and you've formed relationships with the type of people who would want to kill you, and they would kill you wherever you happened to be, not just at work -- then the company should have no liability.

If you are killed because you are at work, with no regard to your personal relationships outside of work, the company should be liable.

Fairness.

Dallymo: When I knew for sure it was time to get out of work comp claims: when I got a claim for a convenience store clerk shot dead on the job and thought, "No spouse, no dependents, died at the scene so no medical care--cheap claim!"

Good for you getting out of that field. I would have done the same thing the day I came to the same realization you did. I am an engineer, and the day that I look at one of the machines I design and say, "Will this kill someone? If it will, how many? Is it worth it to produce it anyway?" is the day I get out of the industry.

We recently had a machine overturn and injure someone. That was because the operator bypassed a safety device built into the machine. I don't feel bad about that (plus, it was designed well before I got to the company). However, it would be hard to stomach that someone had been injured on one of my machines. I always try to design fail safe: I.E.: If you bypass the safety, the machine shuts down.

No subject: fark this company. This should be payed.

WFern: SpeshilEdjukashin: sloppy shoes: SpeshilEdjukashin: Oh please, grow up people. If she didn't die as a result of her employment, they don't get the cash.

She did die as a result of her employment- the store was targeted for violence; she died.

The story says he wanted to kill a black person. If he was robbing the store and killed her, they would have to pay. If he went down the street looking for a black person to kill and the first one he saw just happened to work there, they don't have to pay.

Regardless of whether they "have to" or not, I'd still say it's pretty horrible. Someone died in the midst of service to their company and left behind a son. The manager, superviser, or whomever needs to man up.

/submitter

"Manning Up" has nothing to do with the situation. Worker's compensation is for wages lost due to work related injuries, not deaths. This is why we have life insurance. Sue the farker who committed the murder. Worker's Comp is not for this purpose, no matter how badly you feel for the victim.

Studson: Intervening torts defeat causation ergo no workman's comp for you

English, motherfarker, do you speak it?

Not all of us are fluent in legalese.

Chalji: Studson: Zel: Wait, why do we care about the victim's workers compensation?

If the family needs money they can sue whoever was at fault, but workers comp is for injured employees who need to keep paying bills. This one doesnt.

Nothing racial involved, I just don't see how a murder means the employer should give money to the family!

She's probably better off without getting workman's comp because it generally sets a price cap on what you can win depending on the nature of the injury. Now she can sue the murderer for lost wages, the value of the life, IIED, NIED, negligence etc.

And lets suppose they get a 4 million dollar judgment. How are they going to collect? The guy was at a dollar store. I am guessing he is pretty much judgment proof.

Getting 500k through workers compensation is better than collecting nothing on a 4 million dollar judgment.

*checks Studson's profile*

Ah, that explains it. 1L I take it?

Yeah and I have finals next week so I'm actually praying something similar happens to me.....
Didn't think of it like that, which makes more sense. I still don't think the company should be liable for something that happened at their store that was out of their control. You can make the argument that had she not worked there then it would not have happened, but I don't think it's fair that a corporation should have to pay out of pocket for something in which they had no fault in.

DarkSkyForever:
"Manning Up" has nothing to do with the situation. Worker's compensation is for wages lost due to work related injuries, not deaths. This is why we have life insurance. Sue the farker who committed the murder. Worker's Comp is not for this purpose, no matter how badly you feel for the victim.

Google "Worker Compensation Death" and see how many hundreds of thousands of times you're wrong about that.

Workman's comp should be for injuries on the job caused by the nature of the work, not for miscellaneous tortfeasors intermeddling intensively over intensive issues of integration