Pubdate: Sun, 16 Dec 2012
Source: Pueblo Chieftain (CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Pueblo Chieftain
Contact:  http://www.chieftain.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1613
Author: George A. Rivera

A TRIAL LAWYER'S HIGH?

Most of the discussions I have read about the legal ramifications of
the passage of Amendment 64 seem to revolve around the level of
intoxication as it relates to marijuana usage in the education
setting, drugged driving, amount in possession and other criminal issues.

However, I believe that a significant issue that is being overlooked
is the matter of civil liability that could confront a business owner
because of marijuana's characteristic of being detectable up to 72
hours after usage.

If said business owner attempts to comply with the new law and not
test for marijuana, I could foresee the following scenario:

An employee engages in an action that results in injury to someone
while the employee is on company time. A drug test is then conducted
and some amount of marijuana is detected in that employee's system.

Could it then be argued in civil court that the business owner should
be held liable for allowing an employee to work with intoxicants in
his/her system?

And even if no such liability is established, the business owner still
would have the headache and expense of a defense in court.

Yet a business owner who decides to have a zero tolerance policy
regarding marijuana usage and conducts drug tests to further that
policy runs the risk of employees who use marijuana filing a civil (or
worse yet, a class action) suit because they are being barred from
using a legal (federal law notwithstanding) substance.

When all is said and done the real winners in this controversy may
very well be the trial lawyers.

George A. Rivera

Pueblo
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D