Opinion
Argued August 24, 1981
September 22, 1981.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Truck accidents.
1. An employe involved in two separate truck accidents caused by his negligence and resulting in substantial damage to property of his employer may properly be found to have demonstrated a substantial disregard of employer's interest and to be guilty of wilful misconduct precluding his receipt of unemployment compensation benefits when discharged as a result of such conduct. [14]
Argued August 24, 1981, before Judges ROGERS, BLATT and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1942 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Louis D. Knowlden, No. B-183453.
Application with the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
James F. Cendoma, for petitioner. Joel Cavicchia, Associate Counsel, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The appellant, an unsuccessful claimant of unemployment compensation, while driving his employer's tractor-trailer truck had two accidents on the same day. In each, the claimant, who was following another vehicle on ice and snow covered roads was unable to bring his vehicle to safe stops. In the first, he avoided striking the leading vehicle, which had gone into a spin, by jackknifing his equipment. As a result more than $2,000 in damages was done to the tractor-trailer. In the second incident, the claimant was unable to stop his equipment before colliding with the leading vehicle which had stopped at an intersection to make a left-hand turn. This accident was the cause of more than $4,800 in damages. The claimant was not charged with violating the traffic laws in the first instance; but in the second he was charged with driving too fast for conditions and paid the fine. There is substantial evidence in this record that the claimant was negligent in both instances which, contrary to the claimant's argument in this appeal, amply supports the conclusion that on these occasions the claimant demonstrated substantial disregard for his employer's interests and committed acts of disqualifying willful misconduct. Schappe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commw. 249, 392 A.2d 353 (1978).
Order affirmed.
PER CURIAM ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 1981, the decision of the Board of Review made July 30, 1980, is affirmed.