If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Judge rules that families can sue Xerox for shooting in workplace   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 130
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

10032 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2003 at 10:41 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-01-15 08:24:13 AM
Jeez.. anyone actually read the headline from Yahoo?

"Judge: Shooting Victims' Kin Can't Sue"

Someone fix the Fark headline and change the tag to "Obvious"
 
2003-01-15 08:59:59 AM
Under the law, companies can't be sued for damages if a worker is injured or killed on the job.
What?!?
 
sos
2003-01-15 09:08:10 AM
Submitter rushes to submit article, fails to read article first.

Stevarooni I think they mean for workplace shootings and stuff like that. You could still sue if an unsafe working condition caused injury or death.
 
2003-01-15 09:12:58 AM
It was a copy cat killer.
 
sos
2003-01-15 09:17:47 AM
Rolls eyes at Bump.
 
2003-01-15 10:23:32 AM
officials knew Uyesugi had anger problems, kept an extensive firearms collection and had told supervisors he was afraid to bring any of the weapons to work for fear he might be tempted to use them.

Good lord no wonder this dude was never fired, I mean I sure the hell wouldn't want to be the guy who handed this wacko his pink slip.

Oh yeah and hey morons If you have a family get some farking life insurance!!!
 
2003-01-15 10:43:38 AM
Must have been the fumes from all of that toner.
 
2003-01-15 10:43:38 AM
Maybe the Farker saw 'Kin' and got confused...
 
2003-01-15 10:44:08 AM
I wonder if the judge spoke in a low tone(r).

I got nuthin.
 
2003-01-15 10:44:18 AM
"Judge: Shooting Victims' Kin Can't Sue"

Well, kin they or can't they?
 
2003-01-15 10:44:42 AM
The families of seven Xerox Corp. employees shot to death by a co-worker in 1999 ***can't*** sue the company because of the state workers' compensation law

I guess the idiot who submitted this article didn't even bother reading it.
 
2003-01-15 10:45:06 AM
This headline deserves a Quizzical Dog.
 
2003-01-15 10:45:51 AM
"Heyyyyyyyy. Brian. Brian-o. The Bri-Guy. The Brianator. Makin copi.." *BLAM*
 
2003-01-15 10:45:57 AM
Most of my office rampages are triggered by the photocopier farking up, too.
 
2003-01-15 10:46:23 AM
dead thread in

5...
4...
3...
2...
 
2003-01-15 10:46:31 AM
Horrible result. Sets a terrible precedent. Basically, it reaffirms the premise that a company has no obligation to even attempt to ensure the safety of its workers when it has actual knowledge of worker's propensity towards violence and mental instability. And I'm not just saying that on account of my profession :P
 
2003-01-15 10:48:46 AM

unconcerned, but minorly quizzical dog?
 
2003-01-15 10:48:54 AM
A formal protest has started with the clients photocopying their asses & sending the pics to the judge.
 
2003-01-15 10:49:48 AM
Litig8r

if the company did not know of said propensities, do you think it coulda had a chance in hell of preventing such a violent outburst?

i mean really, all of our security measures are reactionary. short of making access to a workplace like that of langley, it's tough as shà t to prevent something like this.

that said, xerox's prior knowledge makes them slightly culpible. and by slightly a mean a lot.

ok. now. dead thread in...
 
2003-01-15 10:50:48 AM
Since when are companies NOT liable for workplace injury?

We'll have businesses setting up alligator pits instead of offering early retirement...
 
2003-01-15 10:52:17 AM
A lot of states have workers comp laws set up this way, for good reason. If someone is injured doing his job, he can find recourse through workers comp, which his emplyer pays for. I think, however, a shooting attack is beyond the scope of what would be considered a normal occupational hazzard, except maybe cop or convenience store clerk.
 
2003-01-15 10:52:53 AM


No one checks article before posting incorrect headline
 
2003-01-15 10:53:02 AM
thanks for wasting my time. no, really. thanks.
 
2003-01-15 10:53:08 AM


...this buttoned down, oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from office to office with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into colleagues and co-workers. This might be someone you've known for years, someone very, very close to you.
 
2003-01-15 10:53:10 AM
I'm all for slapping down capricious lawsuits, but in this case, it sounds like the families may have had a point.
 
2003-01-15 10:53:41 AM
I'm cold. Where's the flame war today?
 
2003-01-15 10:53:57 AM
These cloned sheep are all very quizzical.



Get it? Xerox...clones....copies...

Good lord, I got nothing.
 
2003-01-15 10:54:13 AM
I think, however, a shooting attack is beyond the scope of what would be considered a normal occupational hazzard, except maybe cop or convenience store clerk.

Agree. This was not an "on the job injury" - it wasn't an injury (or, in this case, death) brought about by the people doing their work tasks. This ruling is asinine.
 
2003-01-15 10:54:32 AM


If you love the quizzical dog, you can buy this t-shirt. No, wait, you can't buy it. No, you can. Can't.
 
2003-01-15 10:54:56 AM
OSHA surrenders?
 
2003-01-15 10:55:24 AM
Sos, nope. Most states have Workers' Compensation laws that bar lawsuits against the employer for workplace injuries. Instead claims are submitted through a Workers' Comp claim adjustment process. However, some states would allow the suits that Hawaii didn't in this case because their Workers' Comp bar only applies to work-related injuries. Other states allow survivors of workers killed on the job to sue the employer only for grossly negligent conduct.
 
2003-01-15 10:56:54 AM
Jeez... I didn't know Greg Khin was that hard up for money.
 
2003-01-15 10:57:01 AM
Hey guys... didn't you get the memo? Today is opposite day.

Jeez, relax.
 
2003-01-15 10:57:15 AM
Alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax Nice job, but if ya really wanted to tie every thing in you need someone shooting the sheep.
 
2003-01-15 10:57:48 AM
Mods: Please stamp out dissonance between FARK headline and actual headline. It's giving me a headache.

Remove item. And fine the submitter.
 
2003-01-15 10:58:47 AM
The problem I have with this is that I am getting a new job working for xerox
 
2003-01-15 10:58:54 AM
It is almost as funny reading the posts from the people in this thread that didn't read the "true" headline either.

People sure get in a hurry to start a poli-flamewar...
 
2003-01-15 11:02:02 AM
It is unfortunate that people were killed. If the person who had killed the victims were rich and the victim's families could sue him for gobs of money do you think they would still try and sue Xerox? Why is the company responsible? I worked for a Fortune 50 company that had very extensive security measures in place before 9/11 and had increased security at all major campuses and plants after 9/11. They used Pinkerton guards that were not armed. They weere great at verifying our badges and checking our bags but if someone had entered the lobby with a gun or an arsenal of weapons then these guards would have no defense and would be the first ones killed. Then the estranged employee could go in and rampage teh office.

Also, most major companies have a policy of NO WEAPONS on their premises at any time. Unless you are law enforcement (police or govt. agency) then you can't have a firearm, knife on their property and that includes security guards.
 
2003-01-15 11:03:03 AM
I decided to get a little more work done today. So I'm not reading any of the articles.
 
2003-01-15 11:03:53 AM
I would just like to know why these families think that because something bad happened to their loved ones they should win the lottery. How could Zerox have prevented it.
 
2003-01-15 11:04:27 AM
How about a quizzical Granny?

 
2003-01-15 11:05:38 AM
Thirdrail not quite what you asked for, but quite disturbing nonetheless...

 
2003-01-15 11:06:03 AM
Nice job, poster. I can see how you could miss the inch-high letters in that headline.

/losing faith in humanity's place as the intelligent species.
 
2003-01-15 11:07:55 AM
Judge: Shooting Victims' Kin Can't Sue

"Kin" WTF is that all about?
 
2003-01-15 11:08:27 AM
squidloe:

dont' know if that was aimed towards me but I was referring to the part of the article that said state law doesn't hold a company responsible for injury, etc. As Bass555 said: OSHA surrenders.

I don't think murder should fall under a workplace injury either. It's not like Xerox bought him the gun. Someone was just looking to cash in. Regardless, sad situation on many levels.
 
2003-01-15 11:09:45 AM
/off topic

Cool. We've got music to Fark by now.(upper left nav bar)

Groovy.

/Back on topic
 
2003-01-15 11:10:51 AM
"This was not an "on the job injury" - it wasn't an injury (or, in this case, death) brought about by the people doing their work tasks. This ruling is asinine."

The judge likely followed the letter of the workers comp exclusion under the law, which may be similar to the one in my state: On company property, while doing work, involving employees = only available remedy is workers comp. Don't blame the judge, blame the legislature. (Of course, I'm making a big assumption about Hawaii's WC laws.)
 
2003-01-15 11:12:12 AM
off topic

Cool. We've got music to Fark by now.(upper left nav bar)

Groovy.

/Back on topic


Indeed. Thanks for the heads up.
 
sos
2003-01-15 11:12:15 AM
Maybe we can get Yahoo to change the article to match the Fark headline.
 
2003-01-15 11:12:49 AM
Welcome to America....
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report