Court Opinion

ID: 9664429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:18:55.09039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:06.309997
License: Public Domain

NORTON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and would reverse the representative of the Commissioner. It seems to me that this case is more like the Nelson, Eddins and Walseth eases where the employees were discharged as a result of the action of a third party: in the aforementioned cases, the actions of the employers’ insurers, while here, the action of the Commissioner of Public Safety.
Markel’s discharge was based on one incident of negligence. As a result, the Commissioner of Public Safety appears to have arbitrarily limited Markel’s class C license to driving dump trucks and not other vehicles needed by his employer. Markel’s discharge was due to the Commissioner’s action, not his own. I would not distinguish the Eddins and Walseth cases as the majority has done, but would follow those cases.
The Commissioner’s representative found that Markel is an alcoholic, which the majority notes, as well as the legislature finding that alcoholism is a serious illness. Contrary to the majority, I would also conclude that Markel’s accident caused by his alcoholism should not be considered the equivalent of intentional failure to pay a speeding ticket.