Scope of work/responsibility

[Buddy Mitchell]

Jurisdiction

Ohio

On March 15, '18, I was hit by a truck in a crosswalk. I have multiple, severe injuries, permanent damage, loss of ability to work, walk, just about everything..minimum 2 spine surgeries, ect..tons more...anyway, I'll bullet point this to make it easier to understand what I'm trying to find out

**accident happened in Wadsworth Ohio, Medina County
**defendant was on his way to jobsite to work when he struck me
**defendants truck was in his own name
**defendants truck labeled "company he works for" all over it
**defendant is from Missouri, here for work only
**company is from Wisconsin, but offices all over
**defendant plead guilty to fty row pedestrian
**both defendant and his company named in lawsuit
**company, of course, denies scope of work, therefore any responsibility
**both defendants were acting separately, now company seems to be answering for other defendant

Is company liable? Him even being here at all is because of work. He was on his way to work. And even though the truck is in his name, its emblazoned with his company name, was loaded fully for work...its a damn work truck. His company is GIGANTIC and obviously we want their insurance involved because my life as I knew it is completely over. Lots of complications, musical career over..most days i have trouble wiping myself. I just wanna hear what someone else thought of this.

 

[army judge]

Is company liable?

No one can determine liability.

That said, the master-servant theory generally holds the master responsible for the injury caused by her servants.

In the instant case, the employer MIGHT be liable for the acts of her employee.



However, liability can ONLY be determined on a case by case basis after a trial by a judge and/or a jury.

If you don't have an attorney, retain one ASAP.

If you have retained an attorney, discuss all of your concerns ONLY with your attorney.

I understand your anxiety.

I believe you when you say that event has disrupted the life you knew, and has interfered with the life you were building.

If you wish to discuss your feelings, please do so, but ONLY with a psychologist or psychiatrist.

No, I'm not intimating you're crazy.

I suffer from PTSD, among other maladies.

I've learned that discussing certain issues even with your loved ones pisses them off, and drives them away.

You can discuss those issues IF and WHEN they ask.

If you must discuss them, do so with licensed medical professionals only.

By the way, your internist or general practitioner (as well as your specialists) love to hear you express your mental health concerns, positive or negative, as well as your health issues, too.

I wish you well, hang in, and teach yourself patience.

The wheels of our justice system grind slowly.

Worrying, stressing, kvetching will only generate more angst and anxiety within you.

Occupy your time with other more pleasant pursuits, try to forget the lawsuit, and focus on improving your mental and physical health.

God bless.

 

[Buddy Mitchell]

Thank you. Yes I have an attorney of course. And I guess that's why we cant come up with an answer if you are correct. I thought there maybe some clear cut laws concerning things. It certainly consumes me sometimes, but I've been shafted and screwed over my entire life, and of course dont want it to happen with this. But I'm alright, considering. Not real sure why you said I was necessarily discussing personal feelings, I just wanna know are they on the hook or not? But I appreciate your concern, really. Because this has been an ordeal and I didnt even get into much.

 

[army judge]

Not real sure why you said I was necessarily discussing personal feelings,

That was in reference to your revelations about how this incident has impacted your life negatively.

There is no one answer that will suffice in these kinds of issues.

If I asked you what does 2 + 2 =, you'd tell me 4.

Whenever a person's issue ends up in a court of law, its like rolling a pair of dice.
If you roll a pair of dice, all you know is it'll come up with a number between 2 through 12.
When you go to a civil trial, there are only two outcomes, for the plaintiff or the for the defendant.

My guess, not my legal opinion, is that you'll prevail.

Even of you do prevail, receive a judgment for $1,000,000, that doesn't mean you'll get a check.

My first case ever a as lawyer was representing my dad in an age discrimination case.

We went through EEOC, got as right to sue letter, filed a federal lawsuit after about a 14 months into the case.

We prevailed in federal district court to the tune of $3,500,000.

I knew he'd prevail and he did.

A jury returned a verdict in dad's favor.

The defendant appealed to the federal appellate court.

Almost three years later the appeals court upheld the lower court's decision.

Bottom line, dad got justice, but the situation had broken him.

The money wasn't enough for what he endured.

He thanked me for believing in him, and an attorney who opened his firm up to us to support the case because he saw that my dad had been screwed.

I'm trying to say, dad was so busy seeking justice that when he got it, he still felt unfulfilled.

Hang in there, bide your time, your day will come.

 

[Buddy Mitchell]

Understood. And after I read what you said again, I see that you were out ahead of me, and obviously knew where I was with all this, so thank you. It will be 1 year tomorrow, so....and nothing has moved..lol. .but yeah, it seems that the"are they or arent they" was the big question. But you know, you made me think a bit. It does eat me up sometimes, as you could imagine and no amount of $ will bring back what I've lost ..And so I thank you again.

 

[ElleMD]

I do oversee liability claims, including fleet claims for an employer (not your states). There are a million caveats to corporate liability when it is an employee who is the guilty party and not all mean the employer is on the hook, especially if the guy was just on his way to work and not actually on the job yet. I get it. You are mad and the company has deeper pockets than some lowly employee so you are looking at who has the big bucks as you want someone to pay. Talk it over with your lawyer. You might luck out and the employer will offer a settlement even if they aren't liable to avoid the cost of litigation. That is why you have an attorney. I strongly suggest counseling to deal with the anger and resentment because as you said, no amount of money is going to make it all better.

 

[Buddy Mitchell]

I do oversee liability claims, including fleet claims for an employer (not your states). There are a million caveats to corporate liability when it is an employee who is the guilty party and not all mean the employer is on the hook, especially if the guy was just on his way to work and not actually on the job yet. I get it. You are mad and the company has deeper pockets than some lowly employee so you are looking at who has the big bucks as you want someone to pay. Talk it over with your lawyer. You might luck out and the employer will offer a settlement even if they aren't liable to avoid the cost of litigation. That is why you have an attorney. I strongly suggest counseling to deal with the anger and resentment because as you said, no amount of money is going to make it all better.

You have it all figured out, from how I actually feel about all of this, to needing anger management . Wish I would have known you sooner. I just want what's right and fair and wanted to know if there is clear cut law on liability. Could have done without the snark.

 

[zddoodah]

Is company liable?

Even if we had enough information to form an informed opinion, what does it matter what anyone here thinks since, according to your post, this is a disputed issue in a pending lawsuit? If 38 people respond here and all say yes but the jury in the lawsuit says no, then it doesn't matter what anyone here says. If 27 people respond here and all say no but the jury says yes, then again, it doesn't matter what we think.

Him even being here at all is because of work.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean everything he does while in Ohio is in the course and scope of his employment.

He was on his way to work.

An employee who is commuting to or from work is generally not acting in the course and scope of his employment.

obviously we want their insurance involved

I'm sure the employer's insurer is involved (unless the company is self-insured, which a "gigantic" company might be). Do you have reason to think it isn't?

I just wanna hear what someone else thought of this.

Honestly, the only opinion that matters is that of your lawyer.

Here's how cases like this normally work: Plaintiff files complaint. Assuming plaintiff's attorney isn't an idiot, the complaint will not be subject to a motion to dismiss. The defendants will take discovery and that discovery will determine whether the defendant(s) file a motion for summary judgment (i.e., a motion for judgment without the need for a trial). The parties may or may not mediate or otherwise discuss settlement at some point. If the defendant moves for summary judgment and the motion is denied, then the settlement value will go way up because it means the case will go to trial with a (presumably) sympathetic plaintiff.

 

[Buddy Mitchell]

Thank you for your takes. Again, lol, for the 100th time, I just thought that there was a clear cut "in this situation, its this" type of law. I'm seeing alot of different things go into this and it's not clear cut. And you're right, but not even my lawyer, but it seems like it's how the judge interprets it. Ok.. I know now. Lol...i didn't know that asking a question on here came with a free psych evaluation...lmao....bottom line, if someone is responsible, and should be involved, i.dont want them wiggling out on a technicality, ect. I was just trying to get some insight, maybe someones been through this, ....That's why I asked if it's clear cut, but obviously its anything but. But all you have said is correct...but then again what's the point of this message forum? Lol...I had a question about a certain situation...

 

[zddoodah]

Thank you for your takes. Again, lol, for the 100th time, I just thought that there was a clear cut "in this situation, its this" type of law. I'm seeing alot of different things go into this and it's not clear cut. And you're right, but not even my lawyer, but it seems like it's how the judge interprets it. Ok.. I know now. Lol...i didn't know that asking a question on here came with a free psych evaluation...lmao....bottom line, if someone is responsible, and should be involved, i.dont want them wiggling out on a technicality, ect. I was just trying to get some insight, maybe someones been through this, ....That's why I asked if it's clear cut, but obviously its anything but. But all you have said is correct...but then again what's the point of this message forum? Lol...I had a question about a certain situation...

I'm at a loss to understand this response.

I'm sure that the law in Ohio about what is and isn't in the course and scope of a person's employment is as well developed as it is in most states. However, the facts matter greatly, and you didn't provide many relevant facts. Nevertheless, at least two things are clear cut:

1. An employee is generally not acting in the course and scope of his employment when he is commuting between his home (whether it be his actual home or a temporary home) and his place of business. I only say "generally" because I cannot rule out the possibility that there may be exceptions to this rule.

2. That a resident of State X is in State Y on business does not mean everything he does in State Y is within the course and scope of his employment.

The only other fact that you provided that is relevant to the issue is that the employee was driving a truck that has his employer's name on it. That fact alone is not even remotely close to being determinative of the issue.

The "point of this message forum" is for folks to ask and answer general questions about the law. If complex legal issues could be resolved by short message board posts, there wouldn't be any need for lawsuits or trials or juries....

 

[army judge]

The "point of this message forum" is for folks to ask and answer general questions about the law. If complex legal issues could be resolved by short message board posts, there wouldn't be any need for lawsuits or trials or juries....

You're absolutely spot on with this point.

Unfortunately, people seem to believe a question about the law can be answered in a word or a couple of sentences.

In discussions over the years with other lawyers it seems people seek "2+2" responses.

Our legal system has become far too complex, and that complexity increases daily.