Legal Courtroom Stuff

[Airman1270 0]

In another discussion we were talking about the litigation machine that assigns responsibility to business owners for the actions of employees & customers.

I said if I were on a jury I would not blame the company for events over which it had no control, that the individual is responsible for his actions regardless of whether he was on the job at the time of the incident in question, or who happened to own the property on which the incident occurred. Someone with law school experience said this attitude would be considered a pre-existing bias & that I'd have no business being on a jury.

My question: Suppose I believed that the company IS responsible for all actions that occur on its premises, or involve its employees. Why would THIS not be considered a pre-existing bias?

If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible? If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible? If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible? If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible?

Why is it okay to report for jury service with the attitude that the business is responsible for the conduct of employees & customers, but it is considered an unacceptable bias to believe in the concept of personal responsibility?

Cheers,
Jon S.

[popsjumper 2]

Sounds like you were talking to a potential ambulance chaser.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible? If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible? If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible? If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible?


Cheers,
Jon S.

Company might be responsible if they knowingly hired someone that was not bond-able. Pizzeria could be responsible if they give their drivers a bonus based on how many deliveries they can make in less than the alloted time. Wal - Mart would be responsible because they used the cheapest screws they could find and the whole fucking display fell apart and crushed the customers back. DZO could be responsible if they ran the show with a real party atmosphere and knew that the jumper was heavily intoxicated.

etc....

[AdamLanes 1]

I refer you to Mark Twain's Roughing It page 154.

Quote

in our day of telegraphs and newspapers [trial by jury] compels us to swear in juries composed of fools and rascals, because the system rigidly excludes honest men and men of brains. I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading, read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic, talked about it. A jury-list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:

"Have you heard of this homicide?"
"Yes."
"Have you held conversations upon the subject?"
"Yes."
"Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?"
"Yes."
"Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?"
"Yes."
"We do not want you."

A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of
high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice. When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was impaneled--a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beer-house politicians, three bar-keepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward, that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.
The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. expect?
What else could one The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

In another discussion we were talking about the litigation machine that assigns responsibility to business owners for the actions of employees & customers.

I said if I were on a jury I would not blame the company for events over which it had no control, that the individual is responsible for his actions regardless of whether he was on the job at the time of the incident in question, or who happened to own the property on which the incident occurred. Someone with law school experience said this attitude would be considered a pre-existing bias & that I'd have no business being on a jury.

My question: Suppose I believed that the company IS responsible for all actions that occur on its premises, or involve its employees. Why would THIS not be considered a pre-existing bias?

If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible? If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible? If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible? If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible?

Why is it okay to report for jury service with the attitude that the business is responsible for the conduct of employees & customers, but it is considered an unacceptable bias to believe in the concept of personal responsibility?

Cheers,
Jon S.

Everyone serves on a jury with preexisting biases and prejudices. It is the voir dire process that reveals and eliminates the extremes.

Hey Andy9o8, how does that sound?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible? If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible? If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible? If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible?


Cheers,
Jon S.

Company might be responsible if they knowingly hired someone that was not bond-able. Pizzeria could be responsible if they give their drivers a bonus based on how many deliveries they can make in less than the alloted time. Wal - Mart would be responsible because they used the cheapest screws they could find and the whole fucking display fell apart and crushed the customers back. DZO could be responsible if they ran the show with a real party atmosphere and knew that the jumper was heavily intoxicated.

etc....

No.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible? If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible? If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible? If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible?


Cheers,
Jon S.

Company might be responsible if they knowingly hired someone that was not bond-able. Pizzeria could be responsible if they give their drivers a bonus based on how many deliveries they can make in less than the alloted time. Wal - Mart would be responsible because they used the cheapest screws they could find and the whole fucking display fell apart and crushed the customers back. DZO could be responsible if they ran the show with a real party atmosphere and knew that the jumper was heavily intoxicated.

etc....

No.

So, in your opinion a business owner (which I am, btw) is never responsible for the actions of it's employees or customers, even if they contribute to said actions?

Wal Mart would not be responsible for a customer being injured by a shelfing system that was not built to withstand an occasional bump by an off balance customer? What if they built the entire shelf and didn't install the mandated (building code) anti topple bands?

A DZO could share a bottle of Tequila with a jumper and then let said jumper hop on one of their planes and proceed to pass out during free fall?

There's always a grey area.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible? If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible? If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible? If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible?


Cheers,
Jon S.

Company might be responsible if they knowingly hired someone that was not bond-able. Pizzeria could be responsible if they give their drivers a bonus based on how many deliveries they can make in less than the alloted time. Wal - Mart would be responsible because they used the cheapest screws they could find and the whole fucking display fell apart and crushed the customers back. DZO could be responsible if they ran the show with a real party atmosphere and knew that the jumper was heavily intoxicated.

etc....

No.

Just "no"? Diablopilot has spoken! Let all hear and obey!

Incidentally, I think you are mistaken. The employer could share some culpability, if they are legally required to conduct background checks and fail to do so. As an example, when I lived in Tucson, a friend of my wife was raped and murdered in her apartment, by an individual who was on parole after serving time for rape. He had access to her apartment through his employment with a maintainance company that had a contract for her building, so he had a pass key that let him into any apartment in that and several other buildings. Because the job provided employees with access to residences, the employer was required to conduct background checks and not employ people with criminal records, but they just didn't bother to do it. The perpetrator was convicted of rape and aggravated murder, as well as the rape of several other women in other buildings managed by the same company, and sentenced to death. The employer was fined for not conducting required background checks, and later settled out of court when sued.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Suppose I believed that the company IS responsible for all actions that occur on its premises, or involve its employees. Why would THIS not be considered a pre-existing bias?

It is. A juror's job is to determine whether the employee committed the tort while engaged in company business and within the course and scope of employment OR whether the employee was ona frolic and detour outside of the course and scope of employment.

Once that fact is decided, the law decides what to do. If you are willing to ignore the law either way then there is bias.

Quote

If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible?

It depends on the crime. IF the company, for example, knew he was a registered sex offender and hired him to go to people's places, then yeah, you could see how perhaps the company caused a situation with an unreasonable danger by having a serviceman who goes into peoples' homes to do the job.

Quote

If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible?

Because the pizza company is making money off of the driver. The pizza company driver could be out with buddies and run a red light - not their fault. "Deliver this pizza to 123 Main Street. It has to be there in five minutes!" He's doing exactly what he was told to do, and the company is responsible if he fucks up. It's called "respondeat superior" and there are policy reasons.

Quote

If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible?

THe company usually isn't. unless there was either some unreasonable harm from the display, or if there was some danger that the company was aware of and did nothing, WalMart (sued an average of every hour, every day) will be able to defend it.

Quote

If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible?

Because the DZO didn't have the jumper do the waiver. Seriously - those things are pretty damned good!

Quote

Why is it okay to report for jury service with the attitude that the business is responsible for the conduct of employees & customers, but it is considered an unacceptable bias to believe in the concept of personal responsibility?

Both are bias. And both are wanted on a jury as equally as unwanted on a jury.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

In another discussion we were talking about the litigation machine that assigns responsibility to business owners for the actions of employees & customers.

I said if I were on a jury I would not blame the company for events over which it had no control, that the individual is responsible for his actions regardless of whether he was on the job at the time of the incident in question, or who happened to own the property on which the incident occurred. Someone with law school experience said this attitude would be considered a pre-existing bias & that I'd have no business being on a jury.

My question: Suppose I believed that the company IS responsible for all actions that occur on its premises, or involve its employees. Why would THIS not be considered a pre-existing bias?

If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible? If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible? If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible? If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible?

Why is it okay to report for jury service with the attitude that the business is responsible for the conduct of employees & customers, but it is considered an unacceptable bias to believe in the concept of personal responsibility?

Cheers,
Jon S.

Well, this is fa to wide open of a question...What kind of company?

Cities/states/counties are often held lible for the actions of a Police officer...(on or off duty, since they are never considered off duty)

Security companies are held to account for gaurds while on duty!

Im sure there are many examples that break the mold...

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Why is it okay to report for jury service with the attitude that the business is responsible for the conduct of employees & customers, but it is considered an unacceptable bias to believe in the concept of personal responsibility?

The problem is with black/white absolutes that don't allow for any consideration of the facts of the case. In my opinion, a preordained conclusion that the employer could never, under any circumstances, have any culpability is just as wrong as a preordained conclusion that the employer is always responsible. As a jurist, your job would be to weigh the facts and come to a reasonable conclusion; part of this would be determining if the employer had a legal responsibility to conduct background checks or supervise employees, or if they had prior knowledge of a problem employee yet allowed that problem to continue to the point of some criminal conduct. If (just as an example) a pizzeria had a driver who had a history of coming to work drunk or stoned, and they allowed that driver to continue to deliver for them, then I think reasonable people could conclude that the pizzeria had some culpability should that driver cause an accident. On the other hand, if the driver was legally licensed to drive when they were employed, subsequently lost their license, and concealed that fact from the employer, reasonable people might conclude that the employer had done their due diligence, and did not share responsibility. Either way, one would have to weigh the actual facts of the individual case, not make blanket assertions either way.

Quote

If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible?

See my reply to Diablopilot for an example a case where the employer had some responsibility. If an employee has no history of criminal behavior, I personally would hold the employer blameless. Depends on the individual circumstances.

Quote

If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible?

Does the driver have a sketchy driving record, or a clean record, when hired? Does the employer demand adherence to a schedule that can't possibly be met while observing traffic laws? Did the pizzeria owner do a few ride-alongs, and insist that the driver run red lights if no cars were approaching the intersection?

Quote

If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible?

If the customer is just clumsy, Wal-Mart is probably in the clear. However, in a store you expect customers to be looking at merchandise on the shelves. If the display has a base that sticks out half-way across the aisle, such that you have to step over it, it might be reasonable to anticipate that customers searching the top shelf for some item will not be looking at their feet, and might trip over such a hazard. What are the circumstances of the individual case?

Quote

If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible?

Probably the DZO would not be. However, if the skydiver was noticeably impaired, and people observed this and did nothing, the FAA could hold the pilot liable. Again, what are the circumstances of the individual case?

It is quite possible to believe in individual responsibility and still believe that the employer contributed to a criminal act. The "employer" is not just a corporate logo, it is real people acting as managers, coworkers, etc, and they may also have an "individual responsibility" to be on the lookout for, and prevent, criminal behavior. Ducking responsibility by hiding behind a corporate logo can be a great dodge to allow people to get away with criminal behavior.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Cities/states/counties are often held lible for the actions of a Police officer...(on or off duty, since they are never considered off duty)

True. In Cali, the case that made this holding was Mary M v. City of Los Angeles - where a city could be held liable for a sexual assault by a police officer while on duty.

Recently, however, cases have started to limit that. About 18 months ago, there was a case here where vicarious liability was not found when firefighters, on duty, sexually assaulted a woman. So there's some limitations to it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

I think the concept of the laws of Agency (what we are talking about here) are being taken to an extreme. Generally, an employer is responsible for its Agent (employee) when that Agent is acting within the scope of his/her employment.

If you are a delivery driver on a route and hit someone, the company is responsible. That is a reasonably expected cost of doing business.

If that same delivery driver has gone a few miles outside his/her route to have a quickie with the SO, the Agent has likely gone outside the scope of employment and is on his/her own.

Each state interprets this differently, but that is the basic idea. The question is what the attorney can successfully argue the law is in relation to the specific facts of the case before the court.

Now - if your personal opinion is that the law is crap and you will not follow the law - and that is discovered in voir dire (jury questioning) - the Judge will likely not let you sit on the jury. No sense going in with a jury that has a built in reason to appeal the eventual decision.

The laws of agency are an interesting study and create many areas for heated discussion. They are not, however, nearly as simplistic as some of our participants make them. They generally make sense if you go through them methodically.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[david3 0]

Quote

If that same delivery driver has gone a few miles outside his/her route to have a quickie with the SO, the Agent has likely gone outside the scope of employment and is on his/her own.

I am going to guess that if that driver has done it repeatedly (gone a few miles outside his/her route) and been caught by but not corrected (warning, suspension) by the employer it would expose the employer to some responsibility.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

If that same delivery driver has gone a few miles outside his/her route to have a quickie with the SO, the Agent has likely gone outside the scope of employment and is on his/her own.

I am going to guess that if that driver has done it repeatedly (gone a few miles outside his/her route) and been caught by but not corrected (warning, suspension) by the employer it would expose the employer to some responsibility.

An excellent argument to make in court. It depends on prior court decisions in that state and what judge you pull.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[lawrocket 3]

Agree totally. Agency is one of the more interesting and convoluted areas of law out there.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Recently, however, cases have started to limit that. About 18 months ago, there was a case here where vicarious liability was not found when firefighters, on duty, sexually assaulted a woman. So there's some limitations to it.

Jury was filled with firefighters, eh?
Maybe should have had some women in there.

The "limitation" seems to be how well the legal beagles can sway and persuade judges and juries.
Or, as has happened and continues to happen I'm sure, they just need to know where to drop the envelope off.

edited to add:
I expect the legal beagles out there will respond, "BS! Payola, monetary or otherwise, doesn't happen in the legal profession!" Maybe I should start laughing now to get a good jump on it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

It depends on .....what judge you pull.

Another can of stinking worms.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[davjohns 1]

I think that case makes sense. I doubt you would find 'sexually assault women' in the duty description or within the 'reasonable' duties of any firefighter. The court / jury found correctly.

Often (and I mean OFTEN) cases will make it to the jury because of a question of fact. Those are reserved for the jury. Everyone knows, however, that the Plaintiff (the assaulted woman in this case) is looking for a jury that will be emotionally swayed and reach into the deep pocket of the employer to pull out wads of money. It's just how things are. The Judge passes the buck to the jury and the lawyers battle it out. Clearly, the firefighters should pay and the employer should not (absent other facts), but firefighters just don't make enough money to compensate a victim in this case.

As for payola - of course it happens.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[BlindBrick 0]

Another argument against the absolutes here is that every state does it differently so it's really diffuclt to paint everyone with an overarching brush.

Frex. I do a lot of work around AR and with the excpetion of poultry laws and various politiican's pet projects, most of the AR legal code remains essentially unchanged from when it was orignally authored in the 1800's.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Another argument against the absolutes here is that every state does it differently so it's really diffuclt to paint everyone with an overarching brush.

Frex. I do a lot of work around AR and with the excpetion of poultry laws and various politiican's pet projects, most of the AR legal code remains essentially unchanged from when it was orignally authored in the 1800's.

-Blind

I consider that a sign of good law. Does not change with the times. We can only rely on the doctrine that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' if the law is unchanging and intuitive.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

I consider that a sign of good law. Does not change with the times. We can only rely on the doctrine that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' if the law is unchanging and intuitive.

Yes and no. There are some absolutes and those shouldn't change, but as society changes, a significant chunk of the law should, and usually does, change to reflect the society's new values.

Frex. AR rental property laws are more generous to the property owner than the ones that NYC slumlords made so imfamous in the 1800's, and I'm saying that not as someone who percieves themselves as a victim but rather as a former district manager for a multi-family property firm.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[davjohns 1]

I'm generally thinking of criminal laws, but even then, I like the doctrine of caveat emptor. Rentals would be a contrctual issue. If you aren't willing to abide by the terms within the four corners, don't sign.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

If you aren't willing to abide by the terms within the four corners, don't sign.

While I generally agree, that theory has repeatedly been proven to break down when it comes to basic necessities such as shelter.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

In another discussion we were talking about the litigation machine that assigns responsibility to business owners for the actions of employees & customers.

I said if I were on a jury I would not blame the company for events over which it had no control, that the individual is responsible for his actions regardless of whether he was on the job at the time of the incident in question, or who happened to own the property on which the incident occurred. Someone with law school experience said this attitude would be considered a pre-existing bias & that I'd have no business being on a jury.

My question: Suppose I believed that the company IS responsible for all actions that occur on its premises, or involve its employees. Why would THIS not be considered a pre-existing bias?

If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible? If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible? If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible? If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible?

Why is it okay to report for jury service with the attitude that the business is responsible for the conduct of employees & customers, but it is considered an unacceptable bias to believe in the concept of personal responsibility?

Cheers,
Jon S.

What about when the company commits fraud, are the people that work there liable?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun