moe's, can be bad Options

[THECHICKEN]

the employee is working FOR the company.. so in the process of furthering the companies best interests. Any NEGLIGENCE by an employee is usually ALWAYS applied against the employer. The employer is in the best position to prevent the accident and bear the losses of the injury (as compared to the victim) since it was THEIR employee who committed the act.

As for criminal penalties, that would be going against most all due process we have in this country.

Criminal penalties usually require more than just negligence. You are required to show GROSS negligence (though sometimes that's not even enough) or Recklessness. The reason for this is because you are taking away someone's liberty and labeling them a criminal. As for just not preparing food correctly and negligently causing someone to get injured, its hard to say that person is a criminal. Usually these injuries are better served by the civil side of law (suing the negligent person).

Now if you know that something has an extremely high chance of hurting someone (you actively know it), and then you serve them the dangerous food anyhow, you could be convicted of a crime. But this should be the exception, not the rule... especially with something that usually has no mens rea of criminal culpability.

[RitalinJunkie]

Just as well...i wasnt a huge fan of Moe's...I guess im the one person who likes freebirds better (even tho moe's wasnt bad). It did get annoying to hear "WELCOME TO MOE'S' every two seconds when i was in there.


Also, most people would rather sue some corporation than admit that they cant cook for shit.

[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.

[jwttu]

why did the moe's on university close? i doubt freebirds could kill them that fast.

[GOB]

my guess would involve all the ex-cons they had wrapping burritos

[schwab]

they said when i asked them on 19th that it was too small to make a profit .....my theory is the coupons put em out of business but that is because i always used em

[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.

[jwttu]

they said when i asked them on 19th that it was too small to make a profit .....my theory is the coupons put em out of business but that is because i always used em

heres the answer http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/03070...030707047.shtml

This post has been edited by jwttu: Mar 7 2007, 11:49 AM