There are choices to make in this life. To some extent, we hear criticisms of choices and lamentations of behavior. Social media recently erupted with a video of a violent interaction in an American city. The local news has described it as a "violent brawl" resulting in "pretty serious injuries."
The local police chief took to the press to explain the absence of authorities on the scene. She lamented that of all the observers of this 03:00 event, only one called 911 to report the melee. The chief was critical of that minimal engagement and seemingly of those who both recorded and posted the interaction.
The news reports also include allegations that the officials who answered the 911 call were less than receptive. One claimed, “The dispatcher was rude and dismissive.”
The video went "viral," and comments and commentary on social media were less than complimentary of the assailants and the city of Cincinnati. The mayor noted that the "attack (was) horrific and violent" and was unacceptable. Seemingly responding to social media, the chief was nonetheless adamant that she would not be discouraged from visiting downtown.
Arrests were reportedly made. Then more. The Cincinnati Inquirer most recently said seven were arrested on a variety of charges.
One aspect of the chief's conference was intriguing. She explained that "social media and media posts in general 'do not depict the entire incident.'" That is likely a universal truth, as any recording is only inclusive of that moment, any moment. She continued, describing the viral video, "'That is one version of what occurred,' she said. She said posts show 'one side without context.'"
Context? The video shows a brutal assault. Graphic violence. One might wonder what context the chief of police would argue excuses or explains such violence. What could have happened before the video began that could justify the brutality of this attack?
Some suggest that one of the victims was the first to assault or batter one or more of the eventual assailants. There is reportedly a video depicting some altercation, and that victim may have struck or insulted someone before the brutal attack. Who knows the full story until the investigation concludes?
In any event, is there justification for the beating? A woman who was beaten, and who has not been accused of striking anyone, recalled wondering if she had died. News Nation reports on her allegations of physical and emotional injury from the attack, and her feelings regarding reactions from both the public and city officials.
Can the same event produce different conclusions? Will society deem it acceptable that someone is beaten mercilessly because he slapped someone, and unacceptable that the Samaritan woman was beaten similarly? Will there be an absolute outcome that beating is not an appropriate response in any of the recorded or proven context?
The stories reminded me of conversations I have had in recent years regarding the implications of workplace violence. Some in the world of workplace safety and workers' compensation believe that violence in the workplace is increasingly prevalent. That topic raises issues of work-relatedness in the context of whether resulting injuries are or are not compensable.
Some contend that violence at work, that is, on premises, should be presumptively work-related. They advocate for inclusion in workers' compensation, whether related to the work (a disagreement over production or other activity) or not (an argument about last weekend's football game). These proponents' arguments perhaps reflect differing perspectives on workers' compensation scope, or maybe only differences regarding burdens of proof.
The news soon provided another apt example to illustrate the issue, also involving violence. ABC11 in Danville, Virginia, reported that a part-time elected official was at his full-time workplace, a media company. He was attacked, covered with gasoline, and set on fire as he attempted to flee. People reports his recovery will involve about 6 months in the hospital and then years of ongoing care.
The alleged attacker was arrested, and the victim "was airlifted to a regional medical facility for treatment." The news confidently reported that "it appeared the attack stemmed from a personal matter and was not politically motivated."
Then, if unrelated to the media company's business, would the attack be covered by workers' compensation since it was on the employer's premises? When a dispute unrelated to the workplace happens to occur in the workplace, should there be coverage?
There are interesting arguments in both directions. Those who argue for the inclusion of such violent acts focus on two points. First, they note Someone has to Pay (May 2016). That is a valid point, but perhaps oversimplified?
Then, they rely on an old tort law concept that the employer takes an employee as they find them. This argument is, essentially, that every employee comes with issues, whether a preexisting orthopedic condition, a predisposition to infection, or otherwise, as does every customer who walks through the business's door.
Either of those is a foundation for argument and discussion. The opposing view is that unless the violence is demonstrated to relate to the work, then mere presence is not a reason for the cost to be passed to the business, and thus to its customers.
As all that filtered through my brain, a contemporaneous Fortune headline caught my eye: "A 29-year-old Google engineer was killed by a falling tree branch." Their "generous employee death polic(y) will provide death benefits regardless of work-relatedness." The story says "Google will pay half of an employee’s salary to their spouse for 10 years—a benefit that has no tenure requirement." Thus, the debate of inclusion or exclusion has multiple potential facets.
That employer will pay benefits, incur costs, and pass that to its customers regardless of relatedness. It has chosen to do so in its own "death policy," not through some statutory construct or burden of proof. In that, there is an illustration of the potential for diverse approaches and disparate benefits.
In a world that includes senseless violence, there will be ongoing discussion of the potential for workplace violence. There will be litigation in various jurisdictions with a focus on their definitions of "arising out of." And, in some states, there may be legislative focus on whether workers' compensation will include violence and whether the frequency of such violence is increasing or merely increasingly noticed.
In the broadest context, there may be discussion of plans like Google's. That may include the implications of costs associated with investigation, proof, and litigation. Some might contend that the simpler outcome—pay everyone, is more streamlined than burdens, trials, and investigations.
Or, will context be the critical point? If it is, then how will that be sorted in events, unlike Cincinnati or Virginia? Those that are unwitnessed or unrecorded? Will the decisions be left to implication, inference, and suggestion? Will there be presumptions or other legal constructs to guide the analysis and aid in the conclusions?
In other words, how will context be established, distinguished, and weighed?
