I disagree with the decision made by the court.

Hypothetical that comes to mind:

My employer asks me to go to a bank and come back with some cash for the petty cash drawer. So I go to the bank, pull out a gun and rob the bank. I get shot in the process. But it was never my employers intention that I rob the bank. My employer meant for me to make a legit withdrawal from the company bank account. Should I get workers comp because I foolishly broke the law and got hurt in the process? No, of course not. But isn't that what happened with the cell phone? An employer wanted the woman to be accessible by cell phone, but the employer wasn't expecting nor asking the employee to break the law and participate in an act of distracted driving. When the phone rang, the employee should have pulled over before dealing with the phone. I think the benefit of the doubt should go to the employer. There is an implied understanding that an employer expects the employee to do a job within the bounds of the law. In fact, it is probably written in the company handbook. If the employee chooses to go outside the bounds of the law (which in the this case meant disobeying the distracted driving laws) , the employer shouldn't be held responsible.

The courts decision has opened a can of worms on a few levels.

"Your honor, I was thinking about work on a Saturday when I tripped and fell down the stairs. I deserve workers comp."

peter,
terrible analogy.
First, there are usually exceptions for answering a cell phone in a medical emergency, so your assertion about the employer asking to break the law, is unfounded. Im not familiar with Virginia law--but I would guess its at worst borderline.
Next, to compare a felony to a parking violation to draw a comparison is simply inane.
The judge threw me in prison for life because I killed someone. Thats like getting a life sentence for parking in a no parking zone. No--it isnt. There are distinctions between understanding where the law allows for an employee may be put in situations where non-violent offenses may occur.
A limo driver that is injured while speeding for an employer who is rushing to make a plane, is not the same as a armed robbery. In the case of a limo driver, I would expect that the courts would find in his favor.
If she received 25 calls whilst driving and 23 were from her employer , who required her to answer--then it stands to reason that she needs to monitor her phone and the employer bears at least some responsibility for her behavior.
The solution for her, was to never look at her phone while driving, which it sounds like would have put her job in jeopardy. Im never for escaping responsibility, but in this case, it sounds as though she was acting in a manner that she believed was part of her job description. I think the court was correct.

Oh Please there a device called BLUETOOTH its $20 and you dont have to look at your phone.. just touch your ear and say HELLO..

Luca 1 hand for a sec.. like when you turn radio knob.. moron...

ahh thanks ray.
How long do you think it takes to look at your phone to push the 'on' button?
An answer would be appreciated. You want to call me a name--thats fine. But im thinking that pushing on button is seriously not that time consuming.
But go ahead Ray--let me know. YOu are the smart guy. Thanks Ray.

Again you dont look at anything.. You take 1 hand off the wheel push your bluetooth on your ear .. then put your hand back on wheel takes 1-2 sec.. thats it you never take eyes off road its very easy..

Im asking how long does it take to have a non-bluetooth phone --and answer it.
The woman in the article said she normally answers the phone, then pulls over to talk.
So ray, if it takes 1 second to answer a blue tooth. How much longer does it take to push the 'accept' button on your phone? More than 3 seconds?

Luca You are exhausting.. Talking on a cell while driving is illegal If people want to talk on the phone while driving buy a bluetooth and keep your eyes on the road.. PERIOD.. im done...

Michael Gibney, I really wish you could do something about this forum. It reflects badly on all of RIdgefield. Look at the things being said in this thread. I know it is not your fault Michael, but I'm going to be honest with you - the Patch showed up in our town and has become a catalyst for this type of behavior. This is not right in my view. Same people over and over being allowed to make our town look ridiculous. Either take your website and be gone, or, and I'd rather this be the solution, don't allow this kind of unpleasant bantering on the forum. Please be a good new neighbor Michael.

PS - Michael I see some of the thread has been deleted. I don't know if that was you or the original posters takiong out the troubling posts. But the fact that these posts existsed even for a short while is still very disturbing. Please consider banning people.

Mr. Gibney,
I concur with Charlie. i used to want to be engaged with your site because it seemed like a good place to get local news and interact with neighbors about town. Unfortunately, your site has become over taken by Luca and people like him. You need to intervene. I saw a couple of postings where people have tried to address these concerns directly, but for naught.
The next step for me is to express this concern to the business that advertise here. I know a couple of the store owners and am certain they are unaware this is where they are trying to reach customers.

Thank you for your concern. We are doing our best to make this a civil place for conversation. Feel free to flag any comments that appear to fall outside of our terms of service -- that way, they will be brought to our attention more quickly. -MG

I don't know you from beans Michael, but sometimes the best advice comes from strangers. Here is my take on how the internet forum business works. Goal: You want traffic. If you pander to troublemakers, you will get trouble makers. More specifically, you will get a small handful of troublemakers. Nothing more because other people walk away in disgust. There seems to be a corporate dilemma about stopping the troublemakers because at first glance you don't want to lose this traffic. But something to consider, if you do stop the troublemakers, yes you will lose the small handful of traffic, but you will eventually get 100 people or 1,000 people in their place. Headquarters needs to decide, do you want a small handful of people, all of them trouble makers, or do you want 1,000 more reasonable people. I know what the advertisers want.

Here's a thought, what if you simply require people to use real names. People behave better when they aren't so anonymous. Is there any overriding reason why people can't be asked to use real names? We use real names everyday in the real world. Why not on this forum. And if they don't use a real name, for example, if the rest of us can show there is no one in the phone book or on the tax rolls with the poster's name, then ban the person. Simple. Effective. Free. Even makes you more money because more people will be attracted to your website.

Peter you are correct because in this state if you are commuting to work and have a fender bender you are covered under your employer. All of this rubbish needs to be thrown out. But one has to wonder who appointed the judges? That is the key to the issue. Now as far as i am concerned she does not get a dime because since when does an employer have the authority to circumvent state law. That ruling should be appealed to a higher court.

Luca, my real name is Charlie, although I think the last time I posted a few months ago I might have used Charles. I would be glad to use my first and last name as soon as the Patch agrees this is the new rule everyone must follow. I have no need to hide from my posts. I might add, I have lurked in the background long enough to understand you don't use your real name, no part of Luca or Abelino is real correct? Does it strike you as odd that you don't use your real name but you are criticizing me for actually using my real name?

No charlie.
I am fine with no real names. YOu are the one who is asking patch to change their policy. And im thinking if you honestly believe its the right thing to do, then you should exhibit that moral pedestal you desire to stand on--and show patch readers that you practice what you preach.
I preach not lying. Not twsiting facts in order to achieve an agenda. And --as such--I never lie. It would be hypocritical for me to do otherwise.
What I am guessing, "charlie" is that you actually want to see who the other people are , on patch, so you can attack them. If you actually thought it was a good idea to state your real name--then you simply should. I am fine with anonymous names, but I think someone should not change their name on here, so as to achieve an objective of appearing to be in the majority or in agreement with yourself. You obviously change your name---so, I would put you in that category.
You can see i post often and have done so for close to a year now. There is no doubt what I am saying. No one agrees with me on this thread for example--because I dont need to have people agree with me. So --once again-what i ask of others-i do myself. That, charlie is where you are not consistent.
So either state your real name--or allow for others, as you do, to use fake names.
Im for fake names. It allows for more candid conversations--and guys like Ray D-can get their 'moron' name calling in--it doesnt really affect me. Not one iota.

sd67
I go to the little pub a lot. So maybe ill see you there.
Its great and I am friends with the owners. I will ask them to continue advertising on patch as patch allows people to exchange ideas on various town matters.
Your desire to censor is unAmerican--but in any event--Im sure that the Little Pub will be happy to listen to my overtures of how the patch has allowed Ridgefield to expand its horizons on opinion exchanges.