Wish me luck...

I fully understand where it leads. However at some point, there is a reasonable limit that the employer can do.

It wasn't reached in this case, and I don't suggest it was.

If the employer has trained them properly, ensured a full understanding of the policy, and done everything they could there should be a reasonable expectation of the employees adherence to what they have learned. Once they pass outside that particular scope of behavior they should be solely liable, not the employer who made it clear that such action was outside any acceptible action.

You see to me, if you are conducting business that requires work be done that is inherantly dangerous... Driving forklifts where people are shoping. Then you should be responsable for the injury that results. You are benefiting from the business, you should share in the damage it causes.

If you have employees who are running forklifts you should try to make it as safe as possable... the only way to ensure that a company will try to make it as safe as possable is to make them responsable for injury that results.

I agree with the law, that if an employee goes off and does something not in your interests, like goofing around and throws a cherry bomb down the toilet, you are not responsable.
 
Yes, even if. The reality is, there must be some realistic expectation put in there, otherwise the law is unnecessarily punitive toward employers. I would never hire anybody I didn't absolutely have to if they could simply reject my policy when I couldn't stop them and yet I would still be responsible for their action. I would also immediately move my company elsewhere with laws that don't hold me accountable for actions that I have no ability to stop.

This would be like taking the parent to jail when a 16 year old committed a crime. I could see them being responsible if they never taught them right from wrong.

The delineation in my scenario is that I don't believe it is reasonable to hold the employer accountable for actions taken that were clearly deliterious to the business and against policy. (In my scenario there was a clear policy against driving machinery when you couldn't see, even though I think that this one is again just a reasonable assertion and no specific policy should or would be necessary to see clear responsibility toward the person who chose to operate machinery without the ability to see where they were going).

It is clearly not within the law itself when it negatively effects the company to roll over things you cannot see, regardless if it is product or customers. It is particularly deliterious to run over customers and well outside the "benefit the company" portion.

You are the type of person who should not be on the jury, as it is a jury members duty to follow the law. We agree to live by certian rules and just because someone disagrees with a law is no excuse for not following it. Doing what Damo said he would do, is just as bad as awarding a huge verdict because you feel sorry for the injured party!
 
Laws created by a bunch of lawyers to enable yet more lawyers to sue the companies more frequently because they tend to have deeper pockets... as do the insurance companies they use.

Laws created by elected officials, to promote responsability and safety!
 
You see to me, if you are conducting business that requires work be done that is inherantly dangerous... Driving forklifts where people are shoping. Then you should be responsable for the injury that results. You are benefiting from the business, you should share in the damage it causes.

If you have employees who are running forklifts you should try to make it as safe as possable... the only way to ensure that a company will try to make it as safe as possable is to make them responsable for injury that results.

I agree with the law, that if an employee goes off and does something not in your interests, like goofing around and throws a cherry bomb down the toilet, you are not responsable.
I would agree if reasonable precautions were not taken to minimize the danger. In my scenario I pointed out that reasonable precaution was taken. If an employee willfully goes against what they are supposed to do with full knowledge that their action would get them fired they are not working to benefit my company.
 
You are the type of person who should not be on the jury, as it is a jury members duty to follow the law. We agree to live by certian rules and just because someone disagrees with a law is no excuse for not following it. Doing what Damo said he would do, is just as bad as awarding a huge verdict because you feel sorry for the injured party!
I did follow the law, you haven't shown, IMO, that it was working to the benefit of the company to, against all reason, all policy, and all training, drive such machinery without the ability to see where you are driving. It, in fact, seems against the benefit of the company. I would vote against you, therefore.

Or do you believe that every juror alive should always vote your way or they are not following the law?

Is it your practice to assume that every juror must vote your way or be breaking the law? That is rubbish.
 
I did follow the law, you haven't shown, IMO, that it was working to the benefit of the company to, against all reason, all policy, and all training, drive such machinery without the ability to see where you are driving. It, in fact, seems against the benefit of the company. I would vote against you, therefore.

Or do you believe that every juror alive should always vote your way or they are not following the law?

No, but the law says differently. see above. If the person is doing an activity that promotes the interests of the company, moving mulch around, then the company is responsable for any damage, no matter how negligently the employer was acting. If the employee was doing an activity that did not promote the interests of the company, robbing the customer, then the company is not responsable. It does not matter, according to the law, how hard the company tried to get the employee to do it a different way, if the employee is attempting to do something to furhter the interests of the company, no matter how misguided the employee is, according to the law, the company is responsable.

If the employee shot a suspected shoplifter to prevent the shoplifter from escaping with company property, the company would be responsable.

If the employee shot a suspected shoplifter because he did not like the guy or had some other anamosity against him, the company would NOT be responsable.

Can you see the difference?
 
I did follow the law, you haven't shown, IMO, that it was working to the benefit of the company to, against all reason, all policy, and all training, drive such machinery without the ability to see where you are driving. It, in fact, seems against the benefit of the company. I would vote against you, therefore.

Or do you believe that every juror alive should always vote your way or they are not following the law?

Is it your practice to assume that every juror must vote your way or be breaking the law? That is rubbish.


I dont belive that every juror should see it the way I see it... I just think jurors should follow the law. My question was if the judge instructed you that the law was different than what you wanted it to be would you follow it?
 
No, but the law says differently. see above. If the person is doing an activity that promotes the interests of the company, moving mulch around, then the company is responsable for any damage, no matter how negligently the employer was acting. If the employee was doing an activity that did not promote the interests of the company, robbing the customer, then the company is not responsable. It does not matter, according to the law, how hard the company tried to get the employee to do it a different way, if the employee is attempting to do something to furhter the interests of the company, no matter how misguided the employee is, according to the law, the company is responsable.

If the employee shot a suspected shoplifter to prevent the shoplifter from escaping with company property, the company would be responsable.

If the employee shot a suspected shoplifter because he did not like the guy or had some other anamosity against him, the company would NOT be responsable.

Can you see the difference?
One more time, see above, I do not believe that you have shown that acting against training and policy in such a manner is promoting the company's interest. In fact, I believe that it is acting against their interest.
 
I dont belive that every juror should see it the way I see it... I just think jurors should follow the law. My question was if the judge instructed you that the law was different than what you wanted it to be would you follow it?
Of course I would. However, even the judge is not perfect. You would have to show me how it was in the company's interest to act in such a manner. Just saying, "He was moving mulch" isn't enough.

If the company has taken all reasonable steps to ensure such an activity will not be done, there comes a time when it is clear that the employee was acting outside their interest.
 
It all depends on the reason the employee did what he did, not how he did what he did.



If, a juror belived that this guy was moving mulch, from a storage area, to a display in the front of the store to somehow promote purely his own interests... then my client looses against the company.

If, on the other hand, a lawyer could get a juror to belive that the guy was somehow moving mulch for the company's benefit, then my client wins against the employer!


* edited because I wrote it wrong the first time!
 
Last edited:
One more time, see above, I do not believe that you have shown that acting against training and policy in such a manner is promoting the company's interest. In fact, I believe that it is acting against their interest.

Again you are missing the point, its not how he does the task he is going about doing... its the interest he was promoting when he undertook the task. At least according to Florida law!
 
Of course I would. However, even the judge is not perfect. You would have to show me how it was in the company's interest to act in such a manner. Just saying, "He was moving mulch" isn't enough.

If the company has taken all reasonable steps to ensure such an activity will not be done, there comes a time when it is clear that the employee was acting outside their interest.

You dont understand the law. Did you read the case law I provided above? The manor the employee went about the activity is illrelevant. What matters is his intent in undertaking the endevor, if it was with the intent of benefiting the employer... the employer is responsable.
 
It all depends on the reason the employee did what he did, not how he did what he did.

If a lawyer could get a juror to belive that the guy was somehow moving mulch for his own benefit, then the juror should side against my client!

If, on the other hand, a juror belived that this guy was moving mulch, from a storage area, to a display in the front of the store to somehow promote purely his own interests... then my client wins!
The manner he was moving the mulch should come into consideration, the employee acted outside the company's interest because they wanted to save trips. Their reason to do such a thing definitely should come into play.
 
You dont understand the law. Did you read the case law I provided above? The manor the employee went about the activity is illrelevant. What matters is his intent in undertaking the endevor, if it was with the intent of benefiting the employer... the employer is responsable.
I don't currently have the time to read it, and I will later.
 
It all depends on the reason the employee did what he did, not how he did what he did.

If a lawyer could get a juror to belive that the guy was somehow moving mulch for his own benefit, then the juror should side against my client!

If, on the other hand, a juror belived that this guy was moving mulch, from a storage area, to a display in the front of the store to somehow promote purely his own interests... then my client wins!

So you are saying that an employee of yours could deliberately break every rule and safety guideline that you have installed and you would still be responsible for their actions if while breaking those rules and guidelines they were doing some work for you?

If your paralegal was going back and forth from his/her desk to make copies for a case you were working on and on the way back and forth they were running with scissors (which we all know is eminantly dangerous) that somehow you would be responsible for their actions should they accidentally run into someone with said scissors?
 
The manner he was moving the mulch should come into consideration, the employee acted outside the company's interest because they wanted to save trips. Their reason to do such a thing definitely should come into play.

According to YOU, but not according to the current state of the law in Florida!
 
You dont understand the law. Did you read the case law I provided above? The manor the employee went about the activity is illrelevant. What matters is his intent in undertaking the endevor, if it was with the intent of benefiting the employer... the employer is responsable.

Then that law is absurd. Because barring the owner physically watching every employee every second of the day to ensure they follow company safety, then the employer would always be subject to liability. how very convenient for lawyers wanting to steal 40%.
 
So you are saying that an employee of yours could deliberately break every rule and safety guideline that you have installed and you would still be responsible for their actions if while breaking those rules and guidelines they were doing some work for you?

If your paralegal was going back and forth from his/her desk to make copies for a case you were working on and on the way back and forth they were running with scissors (which we all know is eminantly dangerous) that somehow you would be responsible for their actions should they accidentally run into someone with said scissors?

Well, you run into workers compensation laws under your example... but in essence, YES that is the current state of the law if that employee hurt a non-employee.

The reasoning is that you should be responsable for damage caused while people are working for YOUR benefit, you are responsable for damage caused on your behalf.
 
Back
Top