A lawyer doesn't always get paid. A lot of suits are on a contingency basis. The lawyer get a percentage of the judgment, limited to 1/3 in this state. No judgment - no pay. I don't do civil law and I'm not going to express an opinion on this case based on the known "facts." But an employer can often be held responsible for an employee's actions, the theory being that you are responsible for supervising your employees.
Thats a great theory. Maybe when I mess up at work I can blame Obama, for he is supposed to supervise me.
When the employee is not physically at the company, it is not feasible to "supervise" said employee more than tracking through GPS, putting governors on vehicles, and being able to shut the vehicle down before the driver exceeds the operating laws.
You're always responsible for supervising your employees even if you aren't physically present. And an employer can often be held responsible for an employee's actions if the employee is acting within the scope of his employment. Whether or not he was acting within the scope of his employment would be a key question. This is not a lawsuit that could be settled on this forum no matter how long the discussion might get. There are just too many facts that a jury would need. I will agree though, that it will almost surely be settled before trial. Lawsuits almost always are, just like criminal cases are almost always settled by a plea agreement before trial. You only go to trial when you're pretty sure that the prosecution cannot overcome reasonable doubt. The Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman cases are examples of that.
Lawyers eat this stuff up. "You're always responsible for supervising your employees even if you aren't physically present. " Who made that up? "And an employer can often be held responsible for an employee's actions if the employee is acting within the scope of his employment" I just love America these days. Keep on passing the buck until it stops at a place where money can be gained.
I drove OTR for a few years for Werner. Most of the time, it is the company that gets sued. You have a lot better chance getting something out of the company than a driver. Most drivers also buy in to a lawyer program that gives you a lawyer on retainer if you are sued. I was in a very minor accident where as I was switching lanes, an SUV tried to gun it and pass me and my trailer hit him. It didn't hit him hard (only damage was a scratch and a broken side mirror) but we did a police report and everything. 8 months later, I was being sued for medical bills, etc. That program assigned me a lawyer and we went to court and the judge threw everything out. But normally in these big corporation cases like this, it will probably never make it to court. Walmart will settle and brush everything under the rug.
You know how many non big rig drivers cause major accidents every day? What if a federal government employee caused a major accident in DC while running errands on work time, with his own personal vehicle? Should the victims of the accident be able to sue the federal government?
Vicarious liability. I don't know the specific facts surrounding this case; but the principal that employers are potentially held liable for the negligent actions of their employees while acting within the scope of their employment is a principal of law that is nearly as old as America itself. Similar legal principals have existed in English law for centuries.
Pretty basic concept that is as old as America. Therefore it would be reasonable to consider that when this law was developed employees worked at the physical place of their employment and under the direct supervision of the employer not on the road several hundred miles from the business delineating this law as antiquated and no longer applicable when the employee is not under the direct supervision of the employer.
There have always been employees that work away from a physical place of employment. The employer has a burden of monitoring employees and their actions to guard against their actions harming others. Employers will always bear the liability of their employees actions. It's the remedial foundation of liability. If a state trooper starts randomly shooting people, would you expect the state to step up and offer some renumeration to the victims families? Should the victims families be allowed to sue for the loss of a family breadwinner?
Sue the state? No! Should the state be responsible for the actions where it should step up? No! If your brother is insane and starts killing people, should you be open to suit for his actions? The tie between you and your brother is more directly related to you than his employer is.
Fletch. I understand my initial words about Tracy were a bit caustic. But Iowa makes a great point. can I ask why you think the department should pay up for the policr man's action? What did they do or could they have done to stop the guy from going on a rampage? I could see them paying up if they ordered him to, but I could hardly see that happening. Why should that department have to pay off for one rogue individuals doing which they could have done nothing to stop? Should they have seen the signs? Sure in 20/20 hindsight people always wish they had. Would taking away his service weapon have stopped him? Probably not. So other than simply American law and courtroom trends, should the employer be held liable? Guilty by association?
According to my husband, the employer's responsibility rests on the common law principle that the master is responsible for the actions of his servant. You're not responsible for what your brother does and you're not responsible for what your employee does while off duty, only if his actions are "within the scope of his employment." It makes perfect sense. If your employee, through negligence, causes harm, the employee is usually not in a position to make it right. But the employer usually is able to right the wrong. I get this from discussing it last night with my husband who is not up yet. :p
Antiquated, likely so, but if there is a law or prevailing precedent, that may be enough for the suit. I do agree, we are an overly litigious society, and that greatly contributes to the costs of just about everything we pay for/buy. ~Bill
