14 Comments

Sorry, but this is not an example of tort abuse. The employees belong in jail, and their employer should be paying damages. The entire food service industry is a large web of trust. Most Americans get half their food from food service establishments. What would you say if some bartender laced drinks with GHB at the request of regular male customers?

In the 2 or 3 years I’ve been reading this blog, this is the only time I can remember disagreeing with one of your inclusions. This isn’t a hot-coffee suit; they went to a restaurant and were poisoned, for crying out loud (yes, I know marijuana isn’t hemlock, but still). I think people have a reasonable expectation to go to a restaurant and not be drugged.

I suppose an argument could be made that they should be suing the local franchise rather than the chain, but I don’t think that was your point.

“Sarge,I didn’t smoke a joint, it was the adultrated whopper.”

I would actually like to know a little more about the law in this case befor I jump either way.

My gut feling is that Burgr King corporate should not be liable for this.

Also, if this is a first occurrence, my gut feling is that ven the franchise should not be liable – it was individuals who performed contrary to their employer’s wishes.

Now, if they had a HABIT of doing this (or were known for similar problems) without being fired, well, then the franchise (but still not corporate) should be liable.

Again, that’s just my gut feeling as to what is reasonable – anyone know what the law actually says on this?

Deoxy: I see your point, but that can’t be right. Wouldn’t that mean that any company could get out of being liable for anything simply by blaming the employees? At least the first time. It would basically mean every company gets one free tort.

What if I hired a roofing company and they destroyed my house? Would I only be able to sue the individuals that were working on it, and not the company?

Now if the Burger King franchise wants to turn around and sue their former employees after settling with the cops, I wouldn’t have a problem with that…

Hmmm…I actually agree with Deoxy on this one.

Kim,

The question, as I see it, isn’t really one of giving Burger King a pass on a tort, it’s whether or not BK itself actually engaged in tortious conduct of some sort.

Perhaps if plaintiffs could show that BK had prior knowledge of the employee’s drug use or propensity to engage in similar behavior then there would be some sort of cause.

But A’s employment of B doesn’t result in some sort of transitive property that necessarily makes A responsible for the actions of B that are neither required nor necessary to fulfill B’s conditions of employment.

There is a difference between holding employers liable for the negligent acts of their employees and attempting to hold employers liable for intentional torts commited by employees. This case is the latter.

Kim: I understand your initial reaction but I think you would have a different view if, let’s say, you were sued after a nanny in your employ injured a pedestrian while using your vehicle under the infuence of a controlled substance.

I’ve handled a few cases involving degenerate fast food employees placing foreign objects and substances in food. Law enforcement personnel were the targets in all of them.

This case surprised me since Beavis & Butthead perps are typically more willing to part with
excess phlegm than prized contraband.

Here’s what I’m confused about, and I mean genuinely confused, as IANAL:

Don’t you have to be able to demonstrate harm in order to recover damages? As I understand it, the officers didn’t get sick, and didn’t lose their jobs or get suspended.

How do you determine compensation when the only “harm” is some wasted time, which was presumably “on the clock”?

It seems to me that the local government which pays their salaries could sue for the officers’ wasted time (going to the hospital) and for the hospital costs (presumably covered by the city as well?) but I’m not clear on what the officers’ damages are.

I’m with the cops on this one. Besides having the deep pockets, BK has a responsibility to see that it’s products aren’t adulterated. And, having spent a previous lifetime managing a BK competitor in the ’70s, I can’t believe this took place without the manager on duty having a clue.

“I can’t believe this took place without the manager on duty having a clue.”

You mean you personally supervised the construction of each and every burger your restaurant ever served (at least to police officers)? I call BS on that. I’ve actually been to a Burger or 2 in my life, and that’s just not how it happens.

The mor ei think about this, th more difficult it is.

On the one hand, I, the consumer, have paid for a service, and the company I paid for that service not only did not supply tha service, but attempted to actively cause me harm.

On the other hand, I, the company (or company management) have to hire people. And those people, even with a prfect backgraound and no history (and, in reality, people “with history” have to work SOMEWHERE), may choose to do something bad, evn something I specifically forbid them to do. How can I prevent this? I CAN’T.

So, we have a case where, eventually, any large scale employer, even without any mistaks or negligence on their part, will have a situation where one or more of their employees will do something bad.

What do we do about this?

Seth & Tex Mex: You may be able to convince me, but I don’t think you’ve addressed my previous questions. Isn’t everything a company does done through its employees? Couldn’t they get out of almost any suit just by blaming the staff? What about my roofing example above? What if I hired a moving company and they stole all my stuff? My only recourse would be to find out what employees were working that day and sue them as individuals?

Okay, another example, and then I’ll shut up.

I go into the hospital to have a wart removed from my foot. Some intern screws up the local anesthetic and they end up having to amputate my leg. I can only try to recover damages from the college kid?

You call BS on that! How freaking tiresome. You’ve been to a “Burger or 2”, and now you’re an expert! This is not worthy of a response.

However… I never said the manager-on-duty personally oversaw the construction of this burger. Though he doesn’t seem to have been ruled out. I said he’d “have a clue”. These are small and confined workspaces. (Rent is calculated by square foot. You don’t buy excess space.) Staff can’t move without without tripping over each other. (Thus, the constant calls of “behind you” and “watch your back”.) The activity required to single out one customers order as “the cop’s”, unearth the treasured stash, and do the deed, should have been enough out of the ordinary to alert any aware manager. And the sniggering of the teens is always a dead giveaway that something’s up. Besides, my money is on that manager as the owner of the stash.

The absurd idea that Corporate is not responsible for the improper/illegal actions of employees has been effectively answered by others.

Kim:

Maybe this helps:

On the roofing example, if an employee negligently damages personal property while performing the roofing operations, such negligence can be imputed to the employer. Since the employee caused damage while acting in the course and scope of the employment, the employer would be liable for such acts.

If the employee, however, vandalized or stole property, such conduct cannot be inputed to the employer because those intentional acts are outside the scope of the employment.

Employers are frequently sued in these cases, not for the imputed intentional acts, but under theories such as failure to properly supervise. Other suits are brought against employers for negligent hiring, which brings up many “Damned if you do, damned if don’t” issues discussed previously on this site.

Again, in your hospital example, if the employee was negligent, but otherwise acting within the scope of his/her employment, the hospital will likely be found liable for the negligence. If the employee assaulted the patient, the hospital is not liable for the assault -and would unlikely be fould negligent for failing to prevent such an assault as such an event would probably be unforeseeable.