[Bruce in West Oz]

How can Coke be held in any way responsible for this? What could they have done? Provided an armed guard for the man? He was loading cool drink machines, for heaven's sake — hardly a "high risk" occupation!

And of course, it was illegal under our laws for the man to carry a firearm for self-defence anyway.

Coke to pay worker $3m after shooting

The New South Wales Supreme Court has ordered the Coca Cola group to pay nearly $3 million to a man who was shot five times while restocking one of its vending machines.

Craig Pareezer was wounded in the head, chest and stomach during the robbery attempt more than seven years ago at the Werrington TAFE in Sydney's west.

He had been the victim of an attack at the same site two years earlier.

He only returned to work when he was told he would not have to load machines there again.

In September the court found that Coca Cola Amatil was liable for injuries suffered in the second attack, including a pierced lung and a tongue half blown off by a bullet.

Justice Robert Hulme has ordered the group to pay damages of $2.89 million to the victim, including $100,000 to his wife and son who witnessed the shooting.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1271258.htm

[P95Carry]

I am just so sad that you guys are deprived a sensible means of SD .... and this incident proves - if proof were needed - that anyways, BG's will always have guns, regardless. I know that was 7 years ago but - doesn't radically alter things.

[JL2152]

Hmm I don't quite know how to file this one. If it were in the US it would help wisen up all the employers that prohibit workers from carrying. If a suit like this makes way in the US we may all be highly encouraged to carry at work.

[Tory]

Our antipodean correspondent queries, "How can Coke be held in any way responsible for this?"

Let's review:

"He had been the victim of an attack at the same site two years earlier.

He only returned to work when he was told he would not have to load machines there again."

So, Coke:

1. KNEW the location could be dangerous;

2. PROMISED not to send that employee there again; then

3. BROKE that promise by sending him there; where

4. He was shot AGAIN.

What part can't you figure out? :rolleyes:

[ssr]

Attempting to kill people for pop machine change. :( :mad:

[Al Norris]

Some store owners get tired of emptying the coin box everyday, as they should. In which case, that box can hold upwards of $400.

[HankB]

Come now, if the Coke employee had been armed, he might have returned fire and shot his assailant . . . there would now be TWO people hurt, doubling the level of violence.

Only Craig Pareezer was injured . . . society can take solace in the knowledge that his assailant remains hale, healthy, and at large.

:barf:

[M1911Owner]

Attempting to kill people for pop machine change. :( :mad: ... that box can hold upwards of $400.

I agree with the first post--Attempting to kill people for pop machine change. :( :mad: $400 is still chump change. It's not worth committing a crime like that for $400.

The book, Never Trust a Calm Dog, and Other Rules of Thumb, gives the rule of thumb, "Never embezzle less than a year's salary." If ever thoughts of larceny cross my mind, so does that rule. Why would anyone take such a huge risk for such a paltry sum of money as the change in a soda machine? :banghead:

[NMshooter]

People have done horrific things for far less. I bet all Coca-Cola does is modify the employment contract to prevent future lawsuits.

[Atticus]

I'd be willing to bet that a future ruling will force Coke to service that machine. Besides the few sane Australians we have here at THR...are there any sane people living down there these days?

[Zundfolge]

I'm usualy the first to rail against such lawsuits, but frankly Tory hit it on the head.

This is a simple "breach of promise" or "breach of contract" suit.

[Bruce in West Oz]

He was NOT an employee of Coca-Cola — he was a freelance subcontractor. He had the choice whether to go or not.

He had NOT been shot previously. He had been roughed up and robbed.

I saw them on TV this a.m. His wife was practically salivating because the first $260 000 had to be paid within 28 days. She was also complaining that it was "nowhere near enough".

[MN_Strelok]

Justice Robert Hulme has ordered the group to pay damages of $2.89 million to the victim, including $100,000 to his wife and son who witnessed the shooting.

If this guy was so terrified of the area, why did he bring his family?

Regardless, it sounds like he should consider himself fortunate just to be alive.

[Zonamo]

How could this man have been shot? I thought guns were illegal in Australia... :rolleyes:

[Tory]

the following claims:

"He was NOT an employee of Coca-Cola — he was a freelance subcontractor. He had the choice whether to go or not."

If he had NO contractual relationship w/Coca Cola, how is it he:

1. Was restocking one of its machines; and
2. Was awarded damages FROM Coca Cola?

NOTE: "He only returned to work when he was told he would not have to load machines there again."

Told by WHOM, if not a representative of Coca Cola? :scrutiny:

"He had NOT been shot previously. He had been roughed up and robbed."

Irrelevant. He was attacked at that site before. The danger is therefore documented. Ergo, ALL my original points were and still are valid. :cool:

[Bruce in West Oz]

Forget this post -- itchy trigger finger!

[Bruce in West Oz]

Your law is obviously different from ours:

If he had NO contractual relationship w/Coca Cola, how is it he:

1. Was restocking one of its machines; and
2. Was awarded damages FROM Coca Cola?

I didn't say he had no contract; under our law he is NOT an employee of the company, as Coca-Cola argued; he is an independent subcontractor.

He was awarded damages because the judge said so.

Coca-Cola have appealed on the grounds that the judge made an error in law.

This is becoming circular -- we'll wait and see what happens at the appeal -- if the media even bother to report it if the appeal is upheld.

[Tory]

an "independent contractor" cannot be "ordered to work." Read what you posted:

He only returned to work when he was told he would not have to load machines there again.

Many "independent contractors" are anything but. In this country, it is often a scam for companies to evade paying Social Security tax, unemployment tax and health benefits. :barf:

[Finch]

Edited for content by moderator.

[DRZinn]

I'd like it a lot better if it were predicated on the "if their policy didn't prohibit it, I'd have protected myself by wearing a gun" defense. Then again, that'd have to be filed against the government, not the company.