He would die of old age in prison

Mr Higgins, you don't seem to get that being "extra curricular activities" has little to do with employers being liable for their employees activities.

I'll add something more.

Its something I see more and more, on public comment sections, for instance on news articles.
Churchill famously get's misquoted but never actually said it.
“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Now in those comment sections you can typically find the examples for that statement.

Recently had a nice example news article, about inheritance tax.
Some sensational article that somebody had inherited a house from her brother and then had to sell it to pay for the inheritance tax..blablabla unfair.

right, now all the comments started ranting that it's a double rip off that they had already payed for the house with income tax and then with vat tax and now they get taxed again. SO UN FAIR.

obviously all taxes are unfair to those who have to pay em.

half a day later there's a sensational article about new gubmint cutting budgets for education and schools.

Obviously everybody ranting and raving that the gubmint parliament members should first cut their own salaries and that would solve all budget holes right there an then...

It's just 2 examples that on their own mean nothing, but the same people will happily rant against tax spending cuts in the morning, and about taxes being levied in the evening..

And no amount of logic can point out to them, that you cannot have it both ways, eg, benefit of services provided (budget cost) and not pay taxes (budget income).

Also cannot point out in any way shape or form the mistakes in their logic, eg , no THEY did not pay taxes on that inheritance twice, because the one that first payed taxes is dead and the one paying inheritance tax is paying it on something he's getting something for free.

And forget about the argument that I think it's fairer to pay taxes on something you get for free, rather then something you have to work for yourself.. (tax on labor)

I'll admit to having a very guilty pleasure in arguing logic in those comment boxes, playing the devils advocate, just to see if I can find just 1 reasonably thinker in the mob. I can tel you, tilting at windmills doesn't really cover it. MOB RULE.. and the bigger the mob, the lower the standards.

Most people are really incapable of taking a step back and looking at a problem or issue objectively. A lot of people cannot do it 1 on 1, but even more people cannot do it if there's 2 of them and then it becomes exponentially more difficult to apply logic as more people are in the mix.

News papers thrive on that stupidity
Politicians make a living off it, because they all vote.

The Internet that was supposed to be something to promote science, technology and education, instead has become to accessible, and now it empowers stupidity, promotes outrage(like the n word) and detriments democracy...

Nobody really wants to talk about it, because it's really something that has no solution (other then censorship which is problematic to say the least)... But it's a big problem...It's actively used by politicians, right wing groups, rooskies, and loads of groups and people with power..
It swings elections... around the world...

There is no more honest debate possible.
The mob rule won't allow it
The smack down in this thread topic, is mob rule @ work.

No, Tobra, I absolutely do understand. I fully understand the legal landscape, and have already made that abundantly clear when I decried the Tort situation as it now stands. I'm addressing the moral, or the ethical responsibilities or liabilities at play in this situation. The two are not the same. I've said it once already, and I will say it again - we are in dire need of Tort reform. Cases such as this one serve to highlight that need.

From the abject lack of response to my very simple question, I think we can all ascertain, and agree, that there was absolutely nothing Popeye's, or any business for that matter, can do to prevent this kind of thing. As such, they simply cannot be held responsible.

I assume you might run a practice of your own, and I will also assume you must, therefore, have employees. If one flies off the handle, chases a patient into the parking lot, and beats the hell out of them - how would you like to be held responsible? Lose your practice and everything you have worked your entire life to attain? And with that as even a remote possibility, what measures would you now put in place to ensure that will never happen?

I would argue that an company is required to have sensible adults in their establishment who can manage such a situation.. That's their responsibility for a business with customer facing employees.

If such a "manager" would have been there, he would have taken charge and de-escalated the situation rather then allowing it to escalate like it did.

It's no different from a construction yard with heavy equipment.. If you do not ensure adequate management, the safety standards will drop, and sooner or later somebody will run over a coworkers with a digger or set down a 10 ton weight on top of somebody, and the hard hat won't be hard enough to protect him.

Will it have been the fault of the operator that was looking on his facebook/phone? defo!

But it's also the construction company's fault for not having had somebody around to keep safety standards in check..

People at the lower end of the work force will do stupid things if left on their own. That's a known fact.
So it has to be mitigated, clearly that didn't happen here, so there is part blame.

Just so Stijn

Legal and moral are not the same thing Mr H. I would, and should be held responsible for the scenario you describe. Why I have insurance, and why I would never have an employee like that.

Stijn answered your question in post 67, Sooner or Later in post 55, John mentioned it in post 33, as did I in 48. Your question has been answered a number of times

Popeye's could have trained their employees better, or hired more responsible individuals to manage their employees. That is what they failed to do.

Wendy's spicy chicken is much better than the CFA spicy chicken if comparing spicy chicken.

The son would be in jail for shooting 1 or more black people.

How about this? I’m pretty sure none of these ‘controls’ would assault a customer...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1573503024.jpg

On a recent vacation, I skipped several of these kiosk McDonald restaurants because it eliminates real jobs supporting real people.
(and really pissed off my passenger too, who was hungry)

I worked at those jobs since I was young and I won't support the change.
The local supermarket has since lost many many thousands of dollars of my business over a decade because of this crap.
I won't shop at automatic venues whenever possible.

Not until I begin to 'self-identify' as cattle or chattel...

what sort of "controls" an employer should have in place to effectively prevent this kind of an occurrence:

- policy
- enforcement of the policy
- training
- screening of employees

maybe others; the UK case above may or may not apply in whatever US state is involved here

Wendy's spicy chicken is a very good sandwich. Popeyes is definitely better. But I would rate Wendy's a close second if CFA isn't all that, even with a bag of chips.

My friend is in the hospital close to a Popeyes so I'll have a few more in the coming week or so. Will be interesting to see if the second is as tasty.

The CFA doesn't have the "zest" that Wendy's has like they are trying not to offend anyone with it having too much flavor. I have not yet had an opportunity for the Popeye's version.

There is a growing list of questions, either by legislation or case law, that employers are barred from asking, lest they face a discrimination lawsuit.

Some examples of questions employers are legally barred from asking (varies by jurisdiction):

-Do you have a family?
-Are you married?
-Have you ever been arrested?
-Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
-Why were you fired from your last job?

Yet today, employers can be sued when they have employees do things like beat up customers, but their hands are tied on trying to avoid such people in hiring.

Valid point.

What the hell happened to us as a country? How the hell did we get here?

Just how on earth, with the severe restrictions legally placed upon pre-employment questioning, would you ever even know you "have an employee like that"?

Stijn's last answer came after I last asked the question. Your "answer" - "don't hire violent thugs" is such a pathetic non-answer that it really does not count. John made no effort whatsoever to answer in his post 33. None. Sooner or Later's "answer" was to relate a court case in, I assume, the UK. His answer relates court results, and does not answer the question.

Another pathetic non-answer. No amount of "training" will ever succeed in quelling those kinds of violent tendencies. None. And several of us have covered modern employers' inability, through the constraints imposed upon them by law, to adequately screen their employees.

This is neither a training nor screening issue. This was an example of an aberrant behavior that no amount of training will never address. We cannot "train" this behavior out of a person. Nor can we "screen" for it, under today's law.

You keep flogging the same dead horse, saying the same basic things over and over again, albeit in different ways. Nobody has adequately answered the question. Unclebilly has come the closest with his automated McDonald's photo, but even he was not really trying - he was clearly more just trying to be a smart ass. Which, don't get me wrong, I can certainly appreciate. He is, after all, on the right track - through no fault of his own...

Where is here exactly? Because we aren't there. Not really. Most of these you can ask. The married and family one is legal to ask, you just can't discriminate based on the answer. Most laws in this vein were created because of discrimination. So the answer to how we sort of got here, but not really because we aren't there, is discrimination.

Ask a potential employee if they are married or have kids and your azz could be in a crack. There is no reason to ask that question.

Any list of questions you cannot ask in an interview will include marital status and kids.

https://ocs.yale.edu/get-prepared/illegal-interview-questions

Marital/Family Status
Illegal: Are you married? Do you have children? If so, what do you do for child care? Are you planning to have children soon? Have you ever been divorced? Where is your spouse employed?
Legal: Are you willing and able to put in the amount of overtime and/or travel the position requires? Are you willing to relocate?

discrimination is bad, m'kay.