Quote:
Originally Posted by flatbutt
If the corporation requires employees to go through training which addresses issues like this then they are probably in the clear. If they don't offer training, or have a policy that states such behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated then a good lawyer could make a case for some sort of negligence.
So without knowing if the training is in place one can't say whether or not they are liable. Not responsible, but liable.
|
While I think we can agree that is a bit of a stretch, at least we are having a conversation now.
The reason I characterize this as a "bit of a stretch" is that I'm not entirely sure
any employer has to offer specific training that teaches that it is not o.k. to beat the hell out of customers. I'm pretty sure that goes without saying under any circumstances. In other words, if Popeye's somehow failed to mention that beating the hell out of customers is unacceptable, I believe that much could be argued to be pretty much inferred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masraum
How it should be and how it is in practice are two very different things.
|
I get that. What I'm getting at is that Popeye's should fight this all the way. They are not liable for these employees' actions, and should not be held liable. This whole situation, along with so many on this forum claiming that of course Popeye's is liable - yet absolutely at a loss as to explain why - is, to me, just another clear indication of what has gone so terribly wrong with our Tort laws. They are desperately in need of reform.