UPS driver who crashed while drinking beers is not entitled to workers compensation for his injuries
Dec 10, 2024, 2:06 PM
DOVER, Del. (AP) — A UPS driver who crashed his truck after downing several beers while driving is not entitled to workers’ compensation for his injuries, a Delaware judge has ruled.
Superior Court Judge Kathleen Vavala ruled late last week that Delaware’s Industrial Accident Board abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law in awarding compensation to Timothy Willis.
“Voluntary intoxication while working deviates from the ordinary course of employment,” the judge noted, saying the board’s decision “exceeded the bounds of reason.”
Willis crashed his semi-truck into a guardrail in Baltimore County, Maryland, in June 2021. He began his shift the night before in Delaware and drove to Pennsylvania before heading to Maryland to drop off the trailer portion of his rig. Willis was headed back to Delaware to drop off the semi-cab before driving home to New Jersey when he barreled into a guardrail at about 4 a.m.
“Willis typically packs a cooler of beers to celebrate the end of his shift while driving back home; but on the day of the crash, he started early,” Vavala wrote, noting that Willis admitted drinking three beers. “Willis admitted he usually drinks beer and drives on the way home from work; attended AA meetings to curb his drinking; and was drinking and driving sometime before the crash,” the judge noted.
Responding officers saw Willis throwing several beer cans out of the truck. Officers said he was slurring his speech, sweating profusely, smelled of alcohol and had defecated on himself.
Officers found an open can of Miller Lite on the running board of the truck, two cans on the ground, and another in the cooler. Willis refused to perform field sobriety checks, but two blood tests taken hours later registered blood alcohol levels of 0.19 and 0.181, both more than twice the legal limit. He was charged with drunken driving but avoided a formal conviction by entering a “probation before judgment” agreement.
The Industrial Accident Board refused to consider the blood alcohol tests because they were not properly authenticated. It also excluded statements Willis made during his Maryland court hearing. Board members then awarded Willis compensation, saying the accident occurred at a time and place where he was reasonably expected to be while working. They also concluded that violation of UPS’s zero-tolerance alcohol policy did not in itself mean the accident was “outside the course and scope of employment.” They also said UPS failed to demonstrate that Willis was intoxicated at the time.
The board noted that the alcohol in question was light beer with lower alcohol content compared to other beers and that it was unclear when he had been drinking. The board also lent some credence to Willis’ claim that he crashed after swerving to avoid a deer.
Vavala said the board correctly noted that Willis had not been convicted of DUI and it correctly excluded the breathalyzer results. She determined, however, that the board abused its discretion in prohibiting cross-examination of Willis about statements he made during his Maryland plea hearing. She also said the board erred in finding that Willis was acting within the course and scope of his employment when he crashed.
“A truck driver cannot reasonably drink, nor is he expected to drink, alcohol while operating a semi-trailer weighing thousands of pounds on curving back roads at close to four in the morning,” Vavala wrote. “Such conduct not only violates company policy — it is also prohibited by law.”
“Finally, to affirm the board’s decision would set a dangerous precedent that employees can get away with driving impaired on the job — as long as it’s light beer — despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,” Vavala concluded.
The judge’s ruling did not indicate Willis’ employment status with UPS.
