On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 1:54:22 PM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 4/15/2021 10:48 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 10:16:01 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 2021-04-14 5:55 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
> >>
> >>> The State has very little to do with liability insurance purchased by a
> >>> company. Maybe you're thinking of Worker's Comp; who funds it varies by
> >>> State. At any rate, my friends who worked there told me some of the
> >>> guys on the line would start drinking at lunch and keep on going. NOT a
> >>> good idea.
> >>>
> >> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle4144089/
> >>
> >> An Ontario Superior Court judge has found an employer partly liable for
> >> injuries suffered by a receptionist who drank at an office Christmas
> >> party, drank more at a bar afterward, and then tried to drive home in a
> >> snowstorm, ignoring offers of a ride.
> >>
> >> In a 20-page judgment issued yesterday, Mr. Justice Clair Marchand said
> >> Linda Hunt's boss noticed she was tipsy during the Friday-afternoon
> >> party in a Barrie real-estate office in 1994, and failed in his duty to
> >> keep her from harm.
> >>
> >> The judge said it was not enough for the boss to offer to call her
> >> husband and ask him to pick her up if she planned to keep drinking; it
> >> was not enough to make a general offer of cab rides to employees, and it
> >> did not get the boss off the hook when a co-worker offered Ms. Hunt a lift.
> >>
> >> Ms. Hunt was convicted of impaired driving after losing control of her
> >> four-wheel-drive vehicle on her way home and colliding with a truck. The
> >> crash left her with severe injuries, including brain damage, and she is
> >> unable to work.
> >>
> >> In a lawsuit that has inspired television satire and irate letters to
> >> newspapers, Judge Marchand found her 75-per-cent responsible for her
> >> pain and financial loss.
> >>
> >> He placed the remaining responsibility jointly on her employer, Sutton
> >> Group Incentive Realty Inc., and the bar, P.J.'s Pub.
> >>
> >> The bar has gone out of business without insurance coverage, leaving
> >> Sutton Group liable for the 25-per-cent damages, calculated by the judge
> >> at about $288,000 plus interest and legal costs.
> >>
> >> Ms. Hunt's lawyer, Roger Oatley, and other personal-injury specialists
> >> said it appeared to be the first time a Canadian court had held an
> >> employer partly responsible for car-crash injuries suffered by an
> >> employee who got drunk at a company social function. In 1999, a jury in
> >> London, Ont., found a company partly liable for injuries suffered by a
> >> second driver in an accident caused by a worker who had taken part in a
> >> drinking session in a company parking lot.
> >>
> >> In the Hunt case, Judge Marchand rejected the real-estate firm's
> >> argument that taking Ms. Hunt's keys would have amounted to theft and
> >> forcing her into a taxi would have been equivalent to kidnapping.
> >>
> >> "I find that had her employer insisted on her leaving the keys at the
> >> office or on her taking a cab home at his expense, if indeed he was
> >> prepared to do so, [it]would have resulted in the plaintiff having no
> >> alternative but to accept. Furthermore, he could easily have phoned her
> >> husband to come and pick her up. He could even have called police if
> >> need be."
> >>
> >> Moreover, the employer "ought to have foreseen that, by maintaining an
> >> open and unsupervised bar, he would be incapable of monitoring the
> >> alcohol consumption of his employee, which led to her danger," he said.
> >>
> >> Don Jerry, owner and president of the firm, said yesterday he is angry
> >> about the outcome of the trial, which ended in October.
> >>
> >> "Based on this decision, nobody should ever, ever buy another person a
> >> drink, because you might get sued," he said. "Why do they even have a
> >> drinking age? If people can't be held responsible for their own actions,
> >> then maybe the age should be raised to 100."
> >>
> >> He said he will ask his insurance company to appeal the decision on
> >> grounds that Judge Marchand dismissed the jury in mid-trial.
> >>
> >> The judge accepted a request from Ms. Hunt's lawyers to try the case
> >> without a jury because of the media glare and the complexity of the
> >> evidence. Letters to newspapers had suggested that Ms. Hunt was trying
> >> to shift blame for her own actions, and her claim was the subject of a
> >> Royal Canadian Air Farce joke.
> >>
> >> Mr. Jerry said he is sure the jury would have approved of his efforts to
> >> stop Ms. Hunt from drinking and driving. He said it was not his fault
> >> that she went to a bar to continue drinking.
> >>
> >> "The jury was made up of people like you and I," he said. "They had the
> >> common sense to know you don't go suing somebody because you drank too
> >> much."
> >>
> >> At her Wasaga Beach home yesterday, Ms. Hunt, who swears she will never
> >> drink alcohol again, said she accepts most of the responsibility for her
> >> drunken actions.
> >
> > The employer will probably win on appeal.
> >
> If he hasn't won on appeal by now, he never will. The court decision
> was handed down 20 years ago.

The article still quoted that the employer: "said he will ask his insurance company to appeal the decision". Who knows whether he did or not,