- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Montana couple sues Albertsons after knife slashing
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:24 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:24 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
We elect lawyers to public office
Like our lovely governor.
0
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:24 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
We are an overly litigious society, but this case isn't one of those.
Suing the shopping center is overly litigious.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:25 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Should the employer always be held liable for the actions of the employee?
At their place of business? Uh huh.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:25 pm to dgnx6
quote:I am not surprised.
Companies have been held liable for their employees off property.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:28 pm to Elleshoe
A business cannot and should not be liable for every action of their employees. It isnt reasonable to expect the business to control 100% of an individual's behavior. This is how we get an over regulated society as well as a society that mires us in special needs
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:29 pm to DemonKA3268
quote:
Suing the shopping center is overly litigious.
Well, do they provide security that wasnt there, do they have lighting that wasnt working?
There are ways you could find them at fault.
Not saying it's right or that they were at fault in this particular case, but i could see where a center could be held liable for something like this.
I do think we are an over litigious societ, but getting stabbed by a violent employee with a violent background while you are just trying to get groceries isnt it.
This post was edited on 9/20/21 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:29 pm to jmarto1
quote:Just so you are aware, that is apparently a crazy viewpoint.
A business cannot and should not be liable for every action of their employees. It isnt reasonable to expect the business to control 100% of an individual's behavior. This is how we get an over regulated society as well as a society that mires us in special needs
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:30 pm to dgnx6
quote:this is why we wait and see instead of doing the "lawyers and lawsuits r bad!" virtue signal.
Well, do they provide security that wasnt there, do they have lighting that wasnt working?
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:31 pm to dgnx6
quote:
There are ways you could find them at fault.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
quote:
Not saying it's right or that they were at fault in this particular case, but i could see where a center could be held liable for something like this.
It's not right but as we see here, it happens.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:35 pm to DemonKA3268
quote:
I asked, So, no matter what the felony, they should be held liable? What if it was malfeasance in office? Felony DWI?
Care to answer or are we going to get another zinger?
I think your question was answered before you asked it.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:37 pm to Scruffy
quote:
ust so you are aware, that is apparently a crazy viewpoint.
If i work at Burger King or any similar place and put a razor blade in your sandwich.
Who are you coming after for civil? Me that makes $8/hr? No, you arent.
This post was edited on 9/20/21 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:41 pm to dgnx6
This thread is very strange to me. So this guy is a current employee at Albertsons, and was wearing the vest (meaning he was presently "at work" I assume?), and attacks someone in the parking lot.....and people are arguing that Albertson's shouldn't be liable for their own employees on the clock and on company property? On the surface, that seems like crazy land to me.
How in the world would Albertson's not be responsible for its own employees in that scenario? It's not like an employee murdered someone at his house, or on vacation...or one of its employees gets drunk on the weekend and kills someone in a car accident. Of course the store shouldn't be liable for something like that. But how in the world should the store not be liable for something its employee did at the damn store?
How in the world would Albertson's not be responsible for its own employees in that scenario? It's not like an employee murdered someone at his house, or on vacation...or one of its employees gets drunk on the weekend and kills someone in a car accident. Of course the store shouldn't be liable for something like that. But how in the world should the store not be liable for something its employee did at the damn store?
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:42 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
But how in the world should the store not be liable for something its employee did at the damn store?
especially when he was convicted already of burglary.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:43 pm to Elleshoe
quote:
I think your question was answered before you asked it.
Maybe so. If the guy was on parole for attempted murder and Albertsons hired him, then they could be held liable. Not sure with burglary. It's also why I provided the other 2 examples.
I get why they would, money. Not going to get it from the perp in this case.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:43 pm to keakar
quote:
not hiring violent felons on parole would be my first thought to avoid having your customers at risk of death from your employees
That will play out well as receiving and maintaining gainful employment is often a requirement of said parole. Part of the whole get ingrained back into society.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:44 pm to DiamondDog
quote:
Not hiring felons.
You would prefer they return to crime in order to eat?
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:47 pm to Elleshoe
quote:
convicted already of burglary
Yeah, being a burglar always means they will try to cut someone.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:47 pm to Elleshoe
quote:
especially when he was convicted already of burglary.
But his past doesn't really matter anyway. He could be a straight A student and valedictorian of his college MBA class. If he assaults someone on property while at work, the store should be liable for that, at least partly. It's their employee.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:48 pm to DemonKA3268
quote:
The couple is asking the court to find Albertsons guilty of actual malice and pay punitive damages.
Agreed.
quote:
The couple also wants the court to find that Tremper, which leases space to Albertsons, should have exercised more reasonable care and must pay damages as a result.
Disagree. It's not the property owner's responsibility to make sure their leasee is providing adequate hiring practices nor adequate security from the leasee's employees.
Posted on 9/20/21 at 12:49 pm to DemonKA3268
quote:in which state do you practice law?
If the guy was on parole for attempted murder and Albertsons hired him, then they could be held liable. Not sure with burglary.
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News