On 3/20/2012 11:55 PM, David Shemano wrote: > > If employer tells employee to deliver a package across town, and employee > gets into an accident because he runs a red light, employer will be liable to > the victim. This is true even though the employer did not tell the employee > to run the red light, even though the employer had no reason to know the > employee would run the red light, and even though running the red light was > illegal. There is simply no negligence on the part of employer (which there > would be, for example, if employer knew employee had a tendency to run red > lights, but sent him anyway because the delivery was late).
If the employee gets into the accident after the package is delivered and while the employee is heading to purchase football tickets, the employer is not held liable. Moreover, if an independent contractor is hired to deliver the package the employer is not held liable for the contractor's negligence. The theory is limited to the "scope of employment" and that ultimately is rooted in the employment relationship -- the employee's duty to server and the employer's duty to control. > The liability is imposed as a matter of public policy, ultimately on the > theory and judgment that it is easier and preferable for employer to absorb > the loss and to insure than employee or victim > . If this is all there is to the theory than I think Jim's point remains valid: "the corporations are getting something extremely valuable (limited liability) for [almost] nothing." Michael Nuwer _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
