Inmate's family plans to sue over fat...

Inmate's family plans to sue over fatal fall

There are 27 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from May 9, 2011, titled Inmate's family plans to sue over fatal fall. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

Family members of a jail inmate who died after a 16-foot fall at the city-county trash station in Las Cruces are threatening a lawsuit, claiming the government was negligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Disgusted

Las Cruces, NM

#1 May 10, 2011
they should sue! i don't care if it was an "inmate" or "lower lifeform" as some of the readers on here would say - they should have at least at a railing up to prevent this fall and death!!
Judge Judy

San Antonio, TX

#2 May 10, 2011
sounds like his opportunistic "family" smell a big
$$$ettlement......
Ole Ricky

Las Cruces, NM

#3 May 10, 2011
Negligence regarding the safety of a person permitted to work at the facility is the determining factor. The family will get a settlement, the only thing left is to determine the amount.
Upset

Monroe, MI

#4 May 10, 2011
No one has asked the question, "Why are they using inmates?" Is it cheap labor or slave labor? Safety training is a requirement at ANY industrial site. Are inmates getting this, or only "employees"? I think Las Cruces, Dona Ana County, and the State of New Mexico all need to catch up to current day working safety standards. Without, they will be facing many law suits. The family SHOULD suit and win.
Duh

Albuquerque, NM

#5 May 10, 2011
And what happens when the worker (don't matter who)
does not use a harness when in heights.

It is an OSHA requirement.

All the years of my employment, we were trained to THINK safety. and we as employers have the right to refuse to do a job when you are in danger.

Didn't this guy use his thinking cap, that when you get up in high places you need to use something to protect you from falls? when there is a potential of that happening?

I guess this guy was wanting to fall so that the family can use the SAFETY measure this guy failed to do, that is called law suit.

My understanding of Workman Comp injuries is that they have the right to refuse you if you fail to use the protection for yourself when provided.
Meaning to say, you don't go to work all stoned out (under the influence of drugs or alcohol) and expect someone to pay your injuries because you can't think straight. I know this is not the case of this one person, but I'm sure protection was provided and he failed to use it.

“Irony, metaphor, film @ eleven”

Since: Feb 08

Old Mesilla/New Las Cruces

#6 May 10, 2011
The job still has to get done no matter who does it.
Devise a worker harness that will prevent a rapid decent, a "decelerator" to avoid this kind of concrete poisoning. Did the prisoner contribute to his own death?

It is very common knowledge that if you die while in custody as a prisoner of the county or state that your survivors who appear give a short squat can probably make a few hundred thousand bucks off the stupidity of your "loved one" being there in the first place.

Stay out of jail.
Conrad

Chaparral, NM

#7 May 10, 2011
SUE!!!!!!!
Anonymous

United States

#8 May 10, 2011
Duh wrote:
And what happens when the worker (don't matter who)
does not use a harness when in heights.
It is an OSHA requirement.
All the years of my employment, we were trained to THINK safety. and we as employers have the right to refuse to do a job when you are in danger.
Didn't this guy use his thinking cap, that when you get up in high places you need to use something to protect you from falls? when there is a potential of that happening?
I guess this guy was wanting to fall so that the family can use the SAFETY measure this guy failed to do, that is called law suit.
My understanding of Workman Comp injuries is that they have the right to refuse you if you fail to use the protection for yourself when provided.
Meaning to say, you don't go to work all stoned out (under the influence of drugs or alcohol) and expect someone to pay your injuries because you can't think straight. I know this is not the case of this one person, but I'm sure protection was provided and he failed to use it.
This was an inmate so they probably didn't have any kind of training. This case would not fall under workmans comp because he was not employed. The other thing would this inmate be taken back for not obeying an officer and get some kind of disciplinary action against him because he refused to do a job that was ordered of him. These are some of the things you need to wonder about since this was no ordinary employee.
Jimz

Las Cruces, NM

#9 May 10, 2011
Society is past the point where a working inmate is subjected to a lower standard of personal safety than an individual who applies for and receives an employment position.
Melanie Thinker

Albuquerque, NM

#10 May 10, 2011
I smell a lawsuit, especially after OSHA investigates.
Zig_Zag

Las Cruces, NM

#11 May 10, 2011
A wrongful death suit usually pays what the victim would have earned the remaining years of their life, so I would say about $500 bucks would cover this lying thief.
El Desmadroso

Albuquerque, NM

#12 May 10, 2011
Duh wrote:
And what happens when the worker (don't matter who)
does not use a harness when in heights.
It is an OSHA requirement.
All the years of my employment, we were trained to THINK safety. and we as employers have the right to refuse to do a job when you are in danger.
Didn't this guy use his thinking cap, that when you get up in high places you need to use something to protect you from falls? when there is a potential of that happening?
I guess this guy was wanting to fall so that the family can use the SAFETY measure this guy failed to do, that is called law suit.
My understanding of Workman Comp injuries is that they have the right to refuse you if you fail to use the protection for yourself when provided.
Meaning to say, you don't go to work all stoned out (under the influence of drugs or alcohol) and expect someone to pay your injuries because you can't think straight. I know this is not the case of this one person, but I'm sure protection was provided and he failed to use it.
I guess this guy had it all planned out. A 16 foot fall, landing on his back (I wonder how excrutiatingly painful that must have been), and then the slow death accompanied by hemorrhaging internally and having all your bones crushed. If this was the case, he planned it out very well. OSHA cited these guys for safety non-compliance (I believe this article mentions this). OSHA requires the employer to provide the harness and safety training, it's hard for an inmate to provide their own. I don't think they sell harnesses through the jail commissary either.
whatever

Las Cruces, NM

#13 May 10, 2011
I see he got the death penalty. I thought the State abolished it a couple years back!
Maury

Albuquerque, NM

#14 May 10, 2011
Paying the family off will be cheaper than housing him in jail.
Rick O Shea

Farmington, NM

#15 May 10, 2011
Duh wrote:
And what happens when the worker (don't matter who)
does not use a harness when in heights.
It is an OSHA requirement.
All the years of my employment, we were trained to THINK safety. and we as employers have the right to refuse to do a job when you are in danger.
Didn't this guy use his thinking cap, that when you get up in high places you need to use something to protect you from falls? when there is a potential of that happening?
I guess this guy was wanting to fall so that the family can use the SAFETY measure this guy failed to do, that is called law suit.
My understanding of Workman Comp injuries is that they have the right to refuse you if you fail to use the protection for yourself when provided.
Meaning to say, you don't go to work all stoned out (under the influence of drugs or alcohol) and expect someone to pay your injuries because you can't think straight. I know this is not the case of this one person, but I'm sure protection was provided and he failed to use it.
How can you be "sure" that protection was provided? The way I read the story this guy was working at ground level and fell into an open pit. If the waste center could not even secure the area with a simple railing then what makes you think they would provide harness' for everyone walking around at ground level?
Kuddos

Las Cruces, NM

#16 May 10, 2011
Duh wrote:
And what happens when the worker (don't matter who)
does not use a harness when in heights.
It is an OSHA requirement.
All the years of my employment, we were trained to THINK safety. and we as employers have the right to refuse to do a job when you are in danger.
Didn't this guy use his thinking cap, that when you get up in high places you need to use something to protect you from falls? when there is a potential of that happening?
I guess this guy was wanting to fall so that the family can use the SAFETY measure this guy failed to do, that is called law suit.
My understanding of Workman Comp injuries is that they have the right to refuse you if you fail to use the protection for yourself when provided.
Meaning to say, you don't go to work all stoned out (under the influence of drugs or alcohol) and expect someone to pay your injuries because you can't think straight. I know this is not the case of this one person, but I'm sure protection was provided and he failed to use it.
Referring to your ignorant comments: "I guess this guy was wanting to fall so that the family can use the SAFETY measure this guy failed to do, that is called law suit." AND "I'm sure protection was provided and he failed to use it."

Your so sure huh?...Get outta here!...You have no idea and your soo sure!...jerk!...He was human for God's sake...People like you with no hearts should be locked away!...when your times comes around i hope you get locked away in hell you heartless jerk.

Since: Apr 11

Las Cruces, NM

#17 May 10, 2011
They will sue and they will win. Somebody failed this man, inmate or not.
Savannah

Eastpointe, MI

#18 May 11, 2011
Good luck on the lawsuit! Hopefully you will win several million dollars.
Joe

Temecula, CA

#19 May 11, 2011
He would undoubtably be covered under WC, however, willfull negligence can allow an individual to sue outside of WC law. It's all going to rest on the degree of negligence - for example, if the facility was known to have been aware of an unsafe work environment prior to the accident. I'm very sure that at least some lawyers will cash in on this case.
Elsie YesSir

Huntsville, AL

#20 May 11, 2011
Zig_Zag wrote:
A wrongful death suit usually pays what the victim would have earned the remaining years of their life, so I would say about $500 bucks would cover this lying thief.
When you wrote this, were you zigging? Or were you zagging? I can't discern which. Please clarify.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

OSHA Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OSHA question (regard to 'forced' standing). (Dec '06) Nov 7 Donny 4
Tiebacks for swing stage Nov 1 DLockhart 1
News New England Ski Area Operator Sets New Helmet R... Oct 24 Fat Bastard 1
Are Corneal Flash Burns a recordable OSHA injury? Sep '17 Jackie 1
OSHA Lost Time Injury?? Sep '17 Jackie 1
SCARY. Wind Tower Erection - High Speed Winds D... Sep '17 MellowingGamer 1
Orange Snow Fencing vs. Red Danger Tape Aug '17 TBones 1
More from around the web