Comments on: Deep pockets files: 1956 edition

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:14:02 +0000

But that kind of compensation is due to an expanded definition of “proximate cause”. It is standard now, but not then. What would have today if that older tighter standard was the law today? Get life insurance.

By: w.rogers turner, Jr.

w.rogers turner, Jr. — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:20:23 +0000

I have to side with John on this…as a worker’s comp practitioner, this is fairly standard. The affair aside, the rule in this case for a traveling employee is essentially the same as present day, at least in Florida. The defense could have argued perhaps intoxication, if that were an affirmative defense at the time. Generally, traveling employees injured or killed in a place they were reasonably expected to be during travel would be (or their estate) entitled to benefits. The exception would be if they substantially deviate from what they were expected to be doing. People injured working out at the Y on a business trip proabably get benefits. Someone traveling 100 miles from where they are supposed to be to go sky diving, less of a chance. Having watched a few episodes of “mad men”, the unfortunate decedent’s actions of being intoxicated, smoking and being with a woman other than his wife could have been wholly expected on an out of town business trip.
The concept of proximate cause is somewhat muddied in workers compensation, which is generally supposed to analyze entitlement to benefits regardless of fault.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:44:37 +0000

The problem is it expanded the definition of “proximate cause” so that almost anything meets the definition. Such is why, Ted has so well expressed, we have a mess. I don’t think this case should have meet the definition of proximate cause. Entertaining a client, indeed. I think what he was doing was material to proximate cause. In my mind, choking on food would not meet proximate cause, but but being killed in a plane or traffic accident while traveling to a meeting would. But just because I think this case doesn’t meet proximate cause, remember, the widow should have carried life insurance.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:29:51 +0000

I really don’t see the problem with this case. The guy was in NYC on company business, at company expense. He was well within any useful definition of ‘working’ the whole while he was in the city (or traveling to/from). What he was up to during the not-actually-working hours is utterly immaterial.

Had he died while eating dinner, choking on a piece of food, his employer (actually, his employer’s insurance co.) would still be on the hook. Had he been involved in an accident while walking along the street, same thing. The ‘nookie’ only provides a cloud of titillation and, perhaps, a chance for scolds to feel outrage at someone doing a bad thing somehow ‘getting away with it’.

To the best of my knowledge, this is pretty standard stuff, not only in the private, but also the public sector.