قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Bus drivers do not have the right to compensate for damage in assault

Bus drivers do not have the right to compensate for damage in assault



The Supreme Court of Kentucky confirmed the denial of the workers' compensation in favor of a bus driver injured in an assault after it was determined that the driver was the aggressor in the space.

In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court held an appeal court not guilty of confirming the state's employment compensation card's denial of the driver's request for workers.

On November 9, 2013, bus driver Douglas Wayne Trevino shot his face and teeth and later said he developed post-traumatic stress disorder after he was attacked by a passenger while driving a bus to the Transit Authority of River City in Louisville, Kentucky. He applied for claims for compensation of employees with TARC and was denied.

TARC argued that Trevino was the aggressor in space and that he was not entitled to compensation since he acted outside of employment. At the conference on the benefit review, the TARC presented the bus monitoring video on board. The administrative judge found that Mr Trevino's alleged acts of shoving the attacker down the bus steps and the verbal disadvantage between the two were "precipitating factors that led to the violent response." He appealed to the Kentucky Complaint Court, who rejected Mr Trevo's interpretation of the event and confirmed ALJ's decision.

Although Trevino argued that Kentucky statutes do not rule out the possibility of obtaining compensation in assault cases where the plaintiff was the aggressor, the Supreme Court of Kentucky was disagreeable and agreed with ALJ that Mr Trevino's actions "were indeed deliberate and deliberate and designed to cause harm this attacker. " The court argued that ALJ was not guilty of denying Trevino's self-defense requirements and that it was his own actions that caused escalation to the assault.

The Court further argued that the legislature had a clear intention in its statute to deny workers' remuneration to creditors if their "aggressive or inflammatory behavior causes violence".

TARC did not respond promptly to requests for comments and TARC's lawyer refused to comment on the decision.

Mr. Trevino's lawyer, Phillipe Rich in Louisville, said he did not agree with the Court's interpretation of the Charter.

"How they interpret it, if you're the aggressor, you don't get workers," he said. "The statute can't mean it, or the cops, bouncers … any damage they have can not be compensated as they interpret the law."

                    

                    


Source link