Mother of robber sues store for allowing employee to carry a gun

[SHR970]

An employer can be held vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct of an employee, within the course and scope of his employment

By this you are saying that if the employee in question was an armed Security Guard that vicarious liability is a possibility since it is within the scope of employment. However; since the employee was not hired with an expectation to perform a function requiring offensive / defensive asset or personnel protection that this form of liability does not apply.


And you are right, I am not a lawyer...never said I was. My strengths lie in dealing with C.C.R. Titles 19 & 24.

P.S. Your three provided definitions do not make clear the Scope of Employment element.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...By this you are saying that if the employee in question was an armed Security Guard that vicarious liability is a possibility since it is within the scope of employment. However; since the employee was not hired with an expectation to perform a function requiring offensive / defensive asset or personnel protection that this form of liability does not apply...

No, I'm saying what I said -- nothing more or less. But in vicarious liability cases "course and scope of employment" can be an issue. In most jurisdictions there will be considerable case law discussing how that issue is resolved.

...P.S. Your three provided definitions do not make clear the Scope of Employment element.

The definitions were definitions of vicarious liability generally. The doctrine has application in other than employer-employee situations. In employer-employee application, "course and scope of employment" is an element.

 

[Bruno2]

I am with everybody saying they are looking for a settlement out of court. However, I would think Kroger has some money and probably some lawyers they already give a bunch of money to every yr. So they may very well roll it into the court room if the plaintiff wants to go that far. I wouldnt think any case would get settled for more than $10 or $15 thousand because it might not even cost that to take it to jury. So I dont think anybody is going to hit the ghetto lottery with it. I could be wrong too.

The general public would be suprised how often these frivilous suits about. I was in one a couple yrs ago that was a total lie made up by the plaintiff and I told my lawyer it was. She suggested I offer up to $5K to make it go away right out of the gate. I told her she was crazy and wasnt giving some liar anything. I got lucky and spent about $1700 getting it thrown out. My business partner spent $7500 in legal fees and ended up with a $3K judgement against him. The plaintiff had about $2800 in medical damages. His ambulance chasing lawyer was furious that there wasnt any money in it for him. So he ended up doing a lot of work for nothing. The plaintiff may very well have had to pay his legal fees out,but,the guy was broke low life so I bet it took a while.

 

[sawdeanz]

I'm curious if this goes to court how it will influence future company policies regarding armed employees. Its funny that many companies ban their employees for carrying guns for liability purposes yet this lawsuit could show that preventing employees from arming themselves could cost the company too. I'm surprised noone in this crowd brought this up yet but I'm sure there is something I am missing. I for one don't think employers banning their employees from legally arming themselves. So I wonder if this case could work for our cause.

 

[SHR970]

I am an idiot

The wrongful death suit charges that the Cincinnati-based Kroger Co. was negligent for failing to supervise its employees and enforce its safety policies, which prohibit employees from carrying firearms while on duty.

“As a direct and proximate result of Kroger’s negligence,” the suit says, “Atkinson is deceased and the plaintiff has suffered harm.”

and

Drew Miroff, a partner at Ice Miller LLP whose practice includes premises liability and risk management issues, said the case will be difficult to win.
“A violation of a company policy is not necessarily negligence,” he said. “They’re going to have to prove that there was a failure to supervise their employees by not enforcing the policy.”

Source:The Indiana Lawyer

Indiana Title 34 Article Article 23 Chapter 1 IC 34-23-1

IC 34-23-1-2 makes this even more interesting.