Court: Drunken deputy's fatal fall covered by work-comp

[ShakaZulu]

Man, some of these morons can be lucky they are in the US.......Montana Narcotics Officers' Association , it's funny, don't these dewds consider alchohol a drug. Seemed to have worked pretty well.

 

[RonDawg]

Let's get this clear...this was not a "work sponsored drinking event." As already posted here, it would be absolutely foolish for a law enforcement agency to have such a thing. There is too much liability at stake.

Without knowing all the details, most likely this was a training event sponsored by the Montana Narcotic Officers Association. California has one too, and provides some really good training classes, such as Drug Interdiction, and knowing how to recognize the symptoms of being under the influence of various types of drugs.

Law Enforcement, like many other professions, have training seminars and conventions. A big one for law enforcement officers, perhaps THE biggest one in the country, is something called the "Street Survival" classes put on by a company called Calibre Press. I have attended a couple of these.

Now, just like seminars and conventions for any other profession, they become focal points for social activity. Many are away from home, and cops in particular are social animals, at least with each other. In this country and many others, how do you celebrate such social occasions? Over an alcoholic beverage, or two, or six. Thus, such seminars often have alcohol available after the seminar, pretty easy to do as most are held in hotels or convention centers.

I say AFTER the seminar, because no agency will knowingly send its officers to an event where alcohol will be served DURING the seminar, except in a course where a select group of volunteers are needed to show the effects of alcohol as part of a specific training course. Such courses are usually related to either DUI investigation or drug influence investigation (alcohol causes certain physiological reactions that can be also used to determine what, if any, drug a person is under the influence of).

AFTER is also important, because an agency can show that it was not sponsoring anything except what was being taught from 8 AM to 5 PM; what the officer does outside those hours are strictly his/her responsibility.

Now, I am not familiar with Montana law, but it surprises me that their Supreme Court said the officer was covered. For one thing, this was done in what my opinion was the officer's own time. Also, drinking to excess can be easily construed as "outside the scope of one's employment."

 

[Randy43068]

It's not so much the deputy, he's dead. It's the crazy court system and lack of commen sense in the Judiciary.

He should get special consideration, the police are the elite of society, way above us common citizens!

 

[Tobagoman]

That is why there needs to be tort reform. If some frivolous lawsuits could be stopped before ever reaching the courtroom, the country would be way better off.

 

[Potapko]

Let's get this clear...this was not a "work sponsored drinking event." As already posted here, it would be absolutely foolish for a law enforcement agency to have such a thing. There is too much liability at stake.
."

While this makes perfect sense to a thinking person. It SEEMS clear from the report that the agency in question was indeed sponsering the "cocktail hour" portion of the event, which is inexcusable.

The fact that he got stupid drunk after that and fell to his death should still be considered "his own time" Maybe this will affect the kind of parties they have in the future.

My condolences to the family for the loss of their father/husband, and it seems like the courts are going to see that they are taken care of.

If dad had been doing it this never would have happened.

 

[Kamala]

That is why there needs to be tort reform. If some frivolous lawsuits could be stopped before ever reaching the courtroom, the country would be way better off.

This wasn't strictly a tort case. Worker's comp was developed to remove workplace deaths and injuries from the tort system, reducing employer liability by creating a quasi-insurance system from which to pay for work-related deaths and injuries. The suit was about the use of the worker's comp system

That said, I agree this is probably a fairly egregious abuse of the worker's comp system. At least if the Montana legislature is paying attention, they'll be able to close the hole in the law that the Montana supreme court evidently found.

I'll play devil's advocate though. At what point was the officer on his "own time?" If he was required to be at the conference for the fulfillment of his job duties then his employer/workmen's comp should be responsible for injury stemming from those duties. If he felt employer-based pressure to drink to conform, socialize, and otherwise ensure that his job/promotion potential remained intact, than his earlier drinking for six hours in the open and sponsored hospitality room would be "job-related." I think most people can recall or imagine a situation where there job/advancement had at least a small degree of connection to socializing and drinking, including pressure to "keep up" at a party. So now, in performing job-related functions, this officer has become inebriated past the point of rational decision-making. And now, on his so-called "own time" he re-enters the closed hospitality suite, continues drinking for a relatively short period of time (30 minutes), and has a tragic accident. If he drank for six hours in the open hospitality suite and only 30 minutes after it was closed, it's fairly safe to assume that his .20 BAC and resulting condition was largely induced in the six hours rather than the 30 minutes. Shouldn't the employer be somewhat responsible for what condition the parameters of the job leaves its employees at the end of job-time? It certainly seems that there's an argument to be made (and was apparently made successfully to the Montana supreme court) that this officer's job responsibilities left him in a less than functional state when his "own time" began and his employer should be held partially responsible for putting him in that condition.

 

[RonDawg]

While this makes perfect sense to a thinking person. It SEEMS clear from the report that the agency in question was indeed sponsering the "cocktail hour" portion of the event, which is inexcusable.

The agency in question is not a law enforcement agency, nor was it the employer of the deputy who died out of his own stupidity. It is an association of a group of similar individuals (in this case, Montana police officers assigned to drug enforcement work), and the event they were sponsoring was most likely a training seminar.

As far as defining "off-duty", that is very likely the essence of this case, but for reasons different than stated above. Everybody's heard the story of how one is a cop 24/7. In some states, that is truly the case, and even an off-duty officer is compelled to act on anything they would if they were on duty and in uniform. If Montana is one of those states, then I can see why the Montana Supreme Court ruled the way it did.

I'm looking at this from a California perspective, where we are NOT compelled to act off-duty; indeed, in this state the training curriculum of at least the past 12 years seems to DISCOURAGE off-duty involvements unless they are life-threatening. Rather, it encourages officers witnessing off-duty incidents to stay out of the way (again unless immediately life-threatening), summon help, and act as an "trained witness."

 

[Foo]

The suit was about the use of the worker's comp system

It certainly seems that there's an argument to be made (and was apparently made successfully to the Montana supreme court) that this officer's job responsibilities left him in a less than functional state when his "own time" began and his employer should be held partially responsible for putting him in that condition.

Kamala, thanks for your point of view. I can better see how the loophole was used, these are angles that I didn't see before. I agree that there seems to be an argument. The argument, however, certainly wimps out next to common sense and reason, in my opinion. But, it seems that the Montana Supreme Court doesn't share my opinion.

But, what does common sense have to do with the way laws are interpreted, anyway?

Foo

 

[Kamala]

Foo, you too can undergo a commonsensectomy like I have. It's called law school Actually, I like to think I have mine in tact, but it's nice to be able to see that a coin really has 76 sides instead of two under the law. ;-)