Quote:
Originally Posted by heymatt
And the difference between those two guys beating on a customer's car during business hours and the guy who takes a customer's car after business hours and wrecks it is.........
|
There's a very big difference, and it's been beaten to death…
I never said the guy that crashed the ZL1 shouldn't be charged. In fact, I said he was a douche for doing what he did.
The only difference is, he wasn't working for the dealer at the time. He wasn't performing his duties at the owners behest. He had no business being there. He had no business being in the car, let alone stealing it. I've been saying I don't feel the dealer was negligent, or responsible for an employee that decided, on his own, to illegally enter the premises and steal a car, after hours. How could the owner have known, or do anything else to prevent it (based on what we know, not on mindless assumptions)?
I think I've said enough on this, but this is what I'm basing my opinion on:
"Job-Related Accidents or Misconduct
Under a legal doctrine sometimes referred to as "respondeat superior" (Latin for "Let the superior answer"), an employer is legally responsible for the actions of its employees. However, this rule applies only if the employee is acting within the course and scope of employment. In other words, the employer will generally be liable if the employee was doing his or her job, carrying out company business, or otherwise acting on the employer's behalf when the incident took place."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...cts-29638.html
And while I'm at it:
"reasonable care
n. the degree of caution and concern for the safety of himself/herself and others an ordinarily prudent and rational person would use in the circumstances. This is a subjective test of determining if a person is negligent, meaning he/she did not exercise reasonable care."
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1730
I love the law, but I'm no lawyer. If someone else has actual case law that supports their claims, and discount mine, I'd love to see them… Please though, only present case law that is on point, and based on the
facts as we know them…
Padre - Thank you. I missed that. Though I've read the entire thread, I've been basing my comments on the 1st post, since I'm most disturbed by the mob mentality and feeding frenzy as a result of that one post alone...