parallelism
New Member
- 9
So this is my second time posting and I never thought I would be needing as much help as I am. My last thread was about a settlement quote that the users of this forum handled perfectly.
This time, I seek the community for help again but in a slightly different matter.
The vehicle that was involved in the accident was similar to a golf cart. It was a "mule". Basically a golf cart but for more rugged terrain.
While on shift I got distracted and was paying a bit too much attention to the right (passengers side) mirror. I veered to the left and hit the front bumper of the mule. I hit a stationary piece of iron used as a trash for other metal scraps. The point of impact was the front bumper and from doing so, it put too much pressure and caused the windshield to shatter. ]
When my supervisors came to the seen of the accident (which I was very embarrassed about) he told me it was physically impossible for that much damage to have been caused going 6 or 7 miles per hour. I seriously only was going 6 or 7 MPH. The object I hit must have weighted a couple thousand pounds and didn't move it at all.
The course of action my supervisor took was to drive my vehicle (technically my mothers) and drive me to get a UA test. I took the UA test with compliance although he never gave me an option. I asked him when I could get the vehicle back and notified me when he got the results back.
I passed the UA with negative results. He gave me permission to get my car.
This is what I'm having problems with. When we spoke over the phone, he told me I will have to pay for the damages. Although, why am'I paying for the damages if I was unable to use my vehicle? Isn't the whole purpose of me not touching my vehicle is to show my company's insurance that I was not driving under any influence?
I told my supervisor that I would pay for the damages. But I don't want to pay for the damage if I don't have to.
Can anybody shed any light on this topic? If I was unable to use my vehicle, shouldn't the reason be to prove to the company's insurance I was not negligent but only a true accident? Or perhaps is this normal? I guess I'm just seeking any information possible without pissing my boss off more.
TL;DR: Crashed a company mule, couldn't use my car till a UA was completed, paying for damages in full.
Just another small fact to go along here, he asked for me to print out my phone and text records to show I was not texting or calling during the time of the accident. I did so and was not texting or calling.
It just seems like me printing out my phone records, taking a UA and not having access to my vehicle should be a result of the company's insurance checking to see if I were doing anything illegal during the time of the accident.
Please provide feedback. Thanks again
-Parallelism
This time, I seek the community for help again but in a slightly different matter.
The vehicle that was involved in the accident was similar to a golf cart. It was a "mule". Basically a golf cart but for more rugged terrain.
While on shift I got distracted and was paying a bit too much attention to the right (passengers side) mirror. I veered to the left and hit the front bumper of the mule. I hit a stationary piece of iron used as a trash for other metal scraps. The point of impact was the front bumper and from doing so, it put too much pressure and caused the windshield to shatter. ]
When my supervisors came to the seen of the accident (which I was very embarrassed about) he told me it was physically impossible for that much damage to have been caused going 6 or 7 miles per hour. I seriously only was going 6 or 7 MPH. The object I hit must have weighted a couple thousand pounds and didn't move it at all.
The course of action my supervisor took was to drive my vehicle (technically my mothers) and drive me to get a UA test. I took the UA test with compliance although he never gave me an option. I asked him when I could get the vehicle back and notified me when he got the results back.
I passed the UA with negative results. He gave me permission to get my car.
This is what I'm having problems with. When we spoke over the phone, he told me I will have to pay for the damages. Although, why am'I paying for the damages if I was unable to use my vehicle? Isn't the whole purpose of me not touching my vehicle is to show my company's insurance that I was not driving under any influence?
I told my supervisor that I would pay for the damages. But I don't want to pay for the damage if I don't have to.
Can anybody shed any light on this topic? If I was unable to use my vehicle, shouldn't the reason be to prove to the company's insurance I was not negligent but only a true accident? Or perhaps is this normal? I guess I'm just seeking any information possible without pissing my boss off more.
TL;DR: Crashed a company mule, couldn't use my car till a UA was completed, paying for damages in full.
Just another small fact to go along here, he asked for me to print out my phone and text records to show I was not texting or calling during the time of the accident. I did so and was not texting or calling.
It just seems like me printing out my phone records, taking a UA and not having access to my vehicle should be a result of the company's insurance checking to see if I were doing anything illegal during the time of the accident.
Please provide feedback. Thanks again
-Parallelism
