moe's, can be bad Options

[Divergent Realit...]

http://www.local6.com/news/11143651/detail.html

A man who can no longer feed himself said an uncooked chicken burrito put him in a wheelchair. Roger Anderson said he ate the burrito at a Moe's Southwest Grill in Land O' Lakes in September and became sick with stomach cramps, diarrhea and joint pains.

Anderson's attorney said the burrito caused a bacterial infection, which led to a disease that affects the body's nerves.

Anderson and his wife filed a lawsuit against Tampa-based GCF Ventures LLC, which operates the restaurant.

The company said all of its employees are trained in safe food handling and preparation practices, and the restaurant is regularly checked by health inspectors.

noes!

its like jack in the box all over again.

[Billy]

I really feel businesses should not be punished for the faults of their employees. I think the only one who should be sued is the employee. And instead of monetary damages, the employee should get a prison sentence for the harm they caused.

[FORSAKENR320]

I really feel businesses should not be punished for the faults of their employees. I think the only one who should be sued is the employee. And instead of monetary damages, the employee should get a prison sentence for the harm they caused.

this....... is so stupid






we're trying to lessen the amount of people in prisons in the first place.....


and secondly, the company trained the idividual, if they can't do the job right, it's the company's job to stop the behavior or get rid of them.

[Billy]

this....... is so stupid
we're trying to lessen the amount of people in prisons in the first place.....
and secondly, the company trained the idividual, if they can't do the job right, it's the company's job to stop the behavior or get rid of them.

So in this case, where someone did not properly prepare the food and they ended up giving someone paralysis for the rest of their life, what could the company have done? I really do not think anybody could foresee this happening. But since you're all knowing, please tell me what you would have done as CEO of Moe's.

That poor guy is fucked for the rest of his life, and nothing should be done to the person who caused it? No consequence at all? Someone else should flip the bill just because they have the money? That's some messed up thinking.

I guess I feel this way because Jack in the Box is no longer anywhere in west texas because of some dumbass employee. And I don't think we should all have to suffer because of one moron.

[FORSAKENR320]

So in this case, where someone did not properly prepare the food and they ended up giving someone paralysis for the rest of their life, what could the company have done? I really do not think anybody could foresee this happening. But since you're all knowing, please tell me what you would have done as CEO of Moe's.

That poor guy is fucked for the rest of his life, and nothing should be done to the person who caused it? No consequence at all? Someone else should flip the bill just because they have the money? That's some messed up thinking.

I guess I feel this way because Jack in the Box is no longer anywhere in west texas because of some dumbass employee. And I don't think we should all have to suffer because of one moron.

i don't write the rules, but thats the way it works. you're hired as an employee of the company are PART of the company, you aren't contracted labor under it's own seperate authority. i suppose it's perfectly ok for you to think that companies should be allowed to use employees as scape goats to shuck their own responsibility, to just abandon them at the first sign of trouble.

[Billy]

i suppose it's perfectly ok for you to think that companies should be allowed to use employees as scape goats to shuck their own responsibility, to just abandon them at the first sign of trouble.

Why yes brandon, that's exactly what I want!

Just because I don't believe in one extreme doesn't mean I believe in the other. I'm tired of America's whipping boy mentality and in most cases, those responsible tend to be the ones who get punished, but not in the case of negligent employees. I just don't feel it's right that if you open a lemonade stand and hire someone to tend it, but they fail to wash their hands and get a bunch of people sick, you're the one who gets punished. You're the one sued, not the guy who jacked up the operation.

But hey, if you're a corporation you have loads of cash anyway, right? So naturally of course you deserve to be sued. Too bad for those who are employed at the branches that get closed down. They don't need jobs or anything.

[THECHICKEN]

Why yes brandon, that's exactly what I want!

Just because I don't believe in one extreme doesn't mean I believe in the other. I'm tired of America's whipping boy mentality and in most cases, those responsible tend to be the ones who get punished, but not in the case of negligent employees. I just don't feel it's right that if you open a lemonade stand and hire someone to tend it, but they fail to wash their hands and get a bunch of people sick, you're the one who gets punished. You're the one sued, not the guy who jacked up the operation.

But hey, if you're a corporation you have loads of cash anyway, right? So naturally of course you deserve to be sued. Too bad for those who are employed at the branches that get closed down. They don't need jobs or anything.

The whole basis of respondeat superior in tort litigation is to put the person in the best position to prevent the harm and bear the loss liable.

This employee IS just as liable as the state, however, as you most likely can figure out, his paycheck can't compensate the victim.

So the employer is ALSO liable for the main reason of he was RECIEVING the benifit of the employees actions, thus he should bear the RISK as well. Its not like the employer is being hosed... the employer is getting all that money from the customers on his promise that his employees aren't acting negligently.