The employer is liable, both as the owner of the vehicle and as *respondeat superior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior> . Also see: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/an-employer-s-liability-for-employee-s-acts.html <http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/an-employer-s-liability-for-employee-s-acts.html> .*
--- Robert F. Nagel, Attorney Law Offices of Robert Nagel [email protected] www.nagel-law.com Thirty on the Square, 10th Floor 30 W. Mifflin St., Suite 1001 Madison, WI 53703 608-255-1501 office 608-255-1504 fax 608-438-9501 cell On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Robbie Webber <[email protected]>wrote: > Thoughts and comments.... > > First, great article. I appreciate you getting the issues out there and on > the table. As to the topic of which you are writing and the specific case > of Steven Rader (a neighbor of mine) ..... > > Sad. Angry. Outraged. Puzzled. Demoralized. But still not surprised. > > Even thought one needs a license to operate a motor vehicle on the public > roads, so the State appears to consider that activity something that > requires special training and care, it appears that in practical terms, and > even in a court of law, driving is not considered to be an an activity over > which a person must exercise due caution. Failure to follow the law is > simply a mistake, not a criminal activity. And if the case had gone to a > jury, every member of that jury would feel "there but the grace of god go > I." > > I am so tired of the excuse that even juries and prosecutors use that "It > was a mistake." This guy already had another driving violation within the > last two months! And we all know that getting fined only means you got > caught. He's obviously a terrible driver if he got caught twice in two > months. And he's an idiot. And he should never be allowed to drive during > work hours again. > > Besides the vulnerable user law, maybe there should also be enhanced > penalties for people holding commercial driver's licenses, or the employer > should be liable (although that would be a civil suit rather than a > criminal matter.) I would favor a presumption of guilt and automatic > criminal charges where a person driving a commercial vehicle kills or > causes incapacitating injury. Seriously, isn't responsible driving the > least we can expect from people holding a professional license to drive?! > > > Robbie > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Tom Held <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I thought you would be interested in the latest on the Steve Rader case - >> police have ticketed the tow truck driver. I folded that news into a look >> at the vulnerable user law. >> >> >> http://theactivepursuit.com/vulnerable-user-case-tow-truck-driver-ticketed-in-crash-that-killed-cyclist-uw-computer-specialist/ >> >> Please share your thoughts and comments on this topic. >> >> Tom Held >> The Active Pursuit <http://www.theactivepursuit.com> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
