A Dangerous Legal Precedent

by metatron 23 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Eyebrow2

  applied to businesses...this is why business usually carry liability insurance that covers there employees while they are driving on company business. I don't see anything wrong with this precendent IF the person that caused the harm did so whilst do any activity that has to do specifically with the business or organization.

  This is why employers are supposed to screen their employees, and non profits their volunteers. So they shouldn't allow a brother who is a known reckless driver to be behind the wheel in field service, nor a pizza delivery guy with a bad driving record delivering for Dominos.

  If I have a client that tells me they want the temp employee working for me to take on driving duties, I tell them no way, jose. That is a risk I refuse to take on, and our contracts state that.
• 

  LongHairGal

  Never mind danger to the public. How about danger to yourself being in a car driven by a dub? There are several who I would never again get in a car with. There is one particular one (male) while not having bad driving skills per se, is so eccentric and unstable that he would do something stupid with you in the car. For example, he might stop to help or give a ride to some homeless type and endanger any in the car group. What if he did this and one of the sisters got raped or something? What is he going to do - say he's sorry? But because he gets a lot of hours in field service nobody notices these little oddities.
• 

  144001

  Those who second-guess the jury verdict in the case that was referenced in the first post of this thread weren't in court to hear all the facts. Criticizing that verdict without knowing all of the underlying facts is similar to the actions of JWs who criticize other religions and philosophies which they know nothing about (e.g., buddhism). It's just plain stupid.
• 

  RunningMan

  "With regard to the "Coughln" case. The ONLY references that Google turns up are those few provided by Cultawarness or whatever. I couldn't even find any archived news reports on her death with purportedly occurred on Oct 8, 1998. Apparently the case was settled in 2002 which may be part of the reason, but still there ought to be some record of the settlement being noted or the case being filed but I didn't turn up anything in the Connecticut Superior Ct website. "
  
  
  When the Coughlin case was first settled, it was available on several websites, including that of the law firm handling the case. However, the case was settled out of court, and one of the clauses in the settlement was a gag order. This is a very common clause in out of court legal settlements. I'm rather surprised you're not familiar with this, Eduardo - what with being a lawyer and all.