Not sure which forum to post this in, so if this is the incorrect one, I'm sorry!

Anyway, today my husband had an accident at work. He works at a warehouse type facility in the state of Iowa. He was operating a forklift, in the process of going in reverse - backing up. A truck driver - not someone who works for my husband's company, but someone who just dropped off a truck at the warehouse - happened to be standing behind the forklift. My husband bumped him and he slid on some ice and fell over. According to my husband, the man then jumped up and began screaming at him.

The manager in charge spoke to the truck driver and at first, told my husband that everything was fine. Then half an hour later, my husband was called into the office and told that the truck driver said that he'd backed up into him on purpose, that he was hurt and wants to sue the company!

So my husband's job is in jeopardy. They say they won't know for sure if he will be fired or not until Tuesday or Wednesday. What I want to know is what is the likelihood that he will be fired? Only one other person witnessed what happened and he did right out a statement that the whole thing was an accident and that the man didn't seem hurt at all.

Is there anything I can do if he gets terminated? We can't afford for him to lose his job at all. I don't work, I'm a stay at home mom and going to school part time. He's the only one bringing in an income and we have a toddler and bills out the ying yang. I just don't know what to do! Thanks for listening and answering.

First of all, I would think your husbands company should have insisted he go to the ER immediately if he wanted to claim he was hurt. I take it they did at least file an accident report.

Second, I would think that he would need to prove it was on purpose and not an accident otherwise it is his word against your husbands and any witnesses that agree with either.
I would think the company could put him on a suspension as opposed to firing him until it is worked out.
BUT employers can fire any body for any thing

My husband had an accident at work. He works in a warehouse type place and he was driving the forklift. The warehouse failed to salt or sand ice that was covering the ground. When my husband was reversing, the forklift slid backwards a little and he bumped into a non-employee who was walking across the floor. The non-employee then slid on the ice and fell over. He jumped up and began yelling at my husband. He is threatening to sue the company.

What I want to know is if they can legally fire him? He wasn't his fault - they were the ones who failed to provide traction for the wheels of the forklift. If there had been sand or salt down, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. If they DO fire him, can we counter sue?

I was told by a few people that being fired for this particular problem is considered discrimination.

This was indeed a freak accident. Your husband should have looked where he was going with the forklift though. The man he bumped into can sue anyone if he was injured. If he was not injured he just can't sue because he was bumped as you put it. Did he go to the hospital with injuries?

1) If your husband was reversing, he was already moving backwards; how did he slide in a direction he was already traveling?

2) Who was the "non-employee" and what was he doing walking around the warehouse?

3) Like Twinkie already pointed out, the non-employee can only sue if he was injured. In that case, he'd be better off suing the company because they're going to pay out a lot more than your husband would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by china_cat84

My husband had an accident at work. He works in a warehouse type place and he was driving the forklift. The warehouse failed to salt or sand ice that was covering the ground. When my husband was reversing, the forklift slid backwards a little and he bumped into a non-employee who was walking across the floor. The non-employee then slid on the ice and fell over. He jumped up and began yelling at my husband. He is threatening to sue the company.

What I want to know is if they can legally fire him? He wasn't his fault - they were the ones who failed to provide traction for the wheels of the forklift. If there had been sand or salt down, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. If they DO fire him, can we counter sue?

I was told by a few people that being fired for this particular problem is considered discrimination.

---

It's employment at will - anyone can be fired for pretty much anything UNLESS your husband belongs to a Union and there are specific rules about terminating employees.

I'm an accident investigator - you can argue failure to salt. The argument (if the person was injured and sued) will be that your husband knew or should have known he was in an unsafe situation and should have "cured" the condition before he began to operate the forklift.

I don't know who the few people who told you this are - I trust none of them are Attorneys - but I don't see the discrimination here unless several people have run over people with forklifts and they weren't fired but your husband is.

Posted twice - also answered on the other thread, Should be combined. This is a legal question.

I don't know who the few people who told you this are - I trust none of them are Attorneys - but I don't see the discrimination here unless several people have run over people with forklifts and they weren't fired but your husband is.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. I guess if a lot of people were run over with forklifts, then maybe, just maybe it could possibly be discrimination if he were to be fired. Got to get up off the floor, Judy, I'm laughing too much. (puts on straight face while attempting to get off floor with no success).

Judy said: "I don't know who the few people who told you this are - I trust none of them are Attorneys - but I don't see the discrimination here unless several people have run over people with forklifts and they weren't fired but your husband is."


Hmmm. I guess if a lot of people were run over with forklifts, then maybe, just maybe it could possibly be discrimination if he were to be fired. Got to get up off the floor, Judy, I'm laughing too much. (puts on straight face while attempting to get off floor with no success).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epetrie

I am an expert surveillance investigator and I have been working in the insurance industry for over 13 years.

As JudyKayTee has said, you can argue the freezing conditions and failure to salt but then you will have to show that someone would have known the conditions needed salt and therefore admitting liability of non salting in hazardous conditions.

The claimant can sue anyone he wants to but the burden of proof is on his side. It would be difficult to sue your husband, although he is within his rights to try. Normally he'd sue the company, and that's why companies hold large insurance policies. Insurance companies then defend the case. I can't see why this would affect your husbands employment.

I am in no way offering this as legal advice and you should always get legal advice, although this can be very expensive. I am also an associate for Pre-paid Legal Services, and you can get solid legal advice for just $16 per month. It's just like having AAA for your legal needs. You have it 'just in case'.

I can give you all the information you need if you are interested. or go to www.prepaidlegal.com/hub/edwardpetrie and click on the family legal service plans.

---

I'm also an investigator. I also own a business. It's against the rules of the site to use it to advertise for personal gain - that's why I've posted some 10,000 times and never mentioned my company name.

Please read the rules: Ask Me Help Desk - FAQ: Terms of Service, FAQ and How To Use This Site

I investigate 90% for the Plaintiff - in my State the employer AND the employee would get sued in these circumstances. It is obviously different in your State.

And we must sit down some time and discuss pre-paid legal services and my opinion.

This is my first night on here. I am sorry if I have broken the rules of this site.

I work 90% for insurance companies and 10% business defense.

I won't be able to sit down with you but you can call me any time and feel free to offer me you opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epetrie

This is my first night on here. I am sorry if I have broken the rules of this site.

I work 90% for insurance companies and 10% business defense.

I won't be able to sit down with you but you can call me any time and feel free to offer me you opinion.

---

I'll just post my experience working from the other end of things.

In the meantime - what is a surveillance investigator? A subheading under a PI license? Not familiar with the term. I do Workers Comp, Disability, that type of thing (on occasion, complete with cameras) but I've never heard that particular term before.

We are on opposite sides of the bench - I do Plaintiff work, you do defense work - which is basically what insurance work is.

Perhaps that is why - from your experience - you would recommend suing only the employer, not the employee, in a personal injury to a third party at a place of employment. From the opposite side I would sew the case up by naming everyone on the off chance a Judge/Jury finds split fault and only one party has been named.

Judy is correct about naming everybody in a suit. I worked both sides of the street in law firms - plaintiff and insurance defense. If you don't name everybody in a suit, you tend to miss out big time. When there was an accident/wrongful death suit my boss handled years ago, they named everybody and their brother - there were about 20 different defendants and took up several huge file cabinets and took forever to try and settle.

P.S. I don't care for prepaid legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

Judy is correct about naming everybody in a suit. I worked both sides of the street in law firms - plaintiff and insurance defense. If you don't name everybody in a suit, you tend to miss out big time. When there was an accident/wrongful death suit my boss handled years ago, they named everybody and their brother - there were about 20 different defendants and took up several huge file cabinets and took forever to try and settle.

P.S. I don't care for prepaid legal.

---

- But the Plaintiff didn't have a chance of losing! That's the way the game is played. I call it the shotgun approach. Sue everybody and you're bound to hit the right person.

Give that lady a ceegar!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

Give that lady a ceegar!!!

---

Whole thread on prepaid over here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/insura...al-285529.html

Wonder if it's possible to split this thread and join with that thread?

When you answer, read through - Mr. Petrie is a sales rep for the pre-paid legal plan.

I am a licensed Private Investigator in the Provence of Ontario, specializing in Surveillance. As you said, I'm on the other side of the fence.

In Canada, the shotgun approach doesn't work, as if you go to court and loose the case, you have to pay the court costs of the other side too. This is to stop frivolous law suets.

I am the first person to tell you that if you have had an accident the claim for it, just don't exaggerate it, that's when I get involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epetrie

I am a licensed Private Investigator in the Provence of Ontario, specializing in Surveillance. As you said, I'm on the other side of the fence.

In Canada, the shotgun approach doesn't work, as if you go to court and loose the case, you have to pay the court costs of the other side too. This is to stop frivolous law suets.

I am the first person to tell you that if you have had an accident the claim for it, just don't exaggerate it, that's when I get involved.

---

Seems like a double bind to me - if you sue both parties on the chance a Judge or Jury will found both guilty of contributory negligence and only one is found guilty, the Plaintiff has to pay the court costs and that part of the lawsuit is considered frivilous?

On the other hand if you sue only one party and that party is not 100% responsible, there is some liability on the other party - which you did not sue - your client sues you for legal malpractice.

Seems like a strange system to me.

I would assume you are talking about insurance fraud and not lawsuits if you are videotaping - or maybe not - ? Once it's in suit I would think the law firms would take over, not the insurance companies.

But, again, it's different in the US.

I have worked for many defense lawyers on behalf of the insurance companies and also many tort cases. As you say, a strange system, built on the English legal system. Now there is a strange bird.

I just make sure I know the laws concerning me, my trade and my clients. Never had a problem so far and I have video taped thousands of claimants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epetrie

I have worked for many defense lawyers on behalf of the insurance companies and also many tort cases. As you say, a strange system, built on the English legal system. Now there is a strange bird.

I just make sure I know the laws concerning me, my trade and my clients. Never had a problem so far and i have video taped thousands of claimants.

---

We actually have a Canadian Attorney who posts - haven't seen him in a while but maybe he can explain one Defendant vs two Defendants to me.

As you say, the system must be different and it makes no sense to me.