Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067
Define "they."
Whether an employer is liable for the criminal actions of his or her employee depend very much on the details of the act. I don't know enough about this particular act to know whether or not the dealership should be made to pay.
More to the point, unless someone in this thread is privy to details that the rest of us are not, neither is anyone else.
When my guy got drunk and drove a car through a house, the dealership's insurance paid the liability claim. That was a clear case--he was driving a dealership-owned car, so anything he hit while he was driving the car, the dealership was liable for.
If he'd driven his dealership-owned car to someone's house and assaulted that person, the dealership would NOT have been responsible, in any way. If the person who was assaulted chose to sue the dealership, and the story made the news, the GT crowd would be up in arms about how sue-happy the country is.
All I'm asking is that people stop and think for a second before calling for blood. Is that really too much to ask?
|
The dealership is liable because:
A) The employee was acting as an agent of the dealership
B) The employee's criminal act was committed while performing his duties as an employee of the dealership
C) The dealership would have been a direct beneficiary of the employee's criminal act
Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067
All I'm doing is choosing not to assume. Why should I? Why not just wait to form an opinion until I have more facts? None of us trust the media in general, so why trust them in this case?
|
If you really believe that, then you should refrain from forming an opinion about or commenting on any news story ever again, because they
never include all the facts.
