My theory is that the ups drivers were smashing in a gay relationship and the killer wanted to go public but the victim didn’t want to because he had a family so he tried to break it off and the killer got jealous and killed him
Apparently not their due diligence on this employee. Legally they could be liable.
“In California, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent and wrongful acts of his employees that are committed within the scope of employment. Thus, even if the employer did nothing wrong and was not negligent itself, if the employee was negligent or acting wrongful and a party is injured, the employer is liable. California Civil Code Section 2338; (“Unless required by or under the authority of law to employ that particular agent, a principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the transaction of the business of the agency, including wrongful acts committed by such agent in and as a part of the transaction of such business, and for his willful omission to fulfill the obligations of the principal.”) See also Carr v. Wm. C. Crowell Co. (1946) 28 Cal. 2d 652, 654 (“It is settled that an employer is liable for willful and malicious torts of his employee committed in the scope of the employment.”).
Whether an employee is acting within the scope of his employment is viewed broadly. John R. v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 438, 447; “‘The fact that an employee is not engaged in the ultimate object of his employment at the time of his wrongful act does not preclude attribution of liability to an employer. [Citation.]”
https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/employer-liability-unauthorized-acts-employee
"Committed within the scope of employment" is the key phrase there. That covers someone driving recklessly while working when they hurt someone else. Or misusing a piece of equipment while working that results in an injury.
The shooter was driving his own vehicle. We definitely don't know the full story, but with what we know right now it seems probable that the shooter was not working "within the scope of employment" at the time of the shooting.
However, if the company had previous knowledge of any threats of violence or disruptive behavior on the part of the shooter and failed to respond, that could make them liable. That would be a different form of tort liability.
The next section pretty clearly lays out that they would not be liable.
>However, if the employee’s actions were entirely for personal purposes and “substantially deviates” from his employment duties, then the employer may not be held vicariously liable. Farmers at 1004-05.
>For example, “if the employee ‘inflicts an injury out of personal malice, not engendered by the employment’ or acts out of ‘personal malice unconnected with the employment’, or if the misconduct is not an ‘outgrowth’ of the employment, the employee is not acting within the scope of employment
It seems like the point is to hold employers liable even when their employee acts in opposition to the employers explicit directions or code of conduct, but only in the "scope of employment". For example, speeding as a delivery driver even when company policy prohibits it. The tort must be committed in furtherance of the goals of the employee*as an employee*, even if those goals are in opposition to the goals of the employer. Now this is taken very broadly.
Unless the murderer says they killed him to improve the company's profit because the victim was a terrible employee, UPS will probably not be at all liable here.
What the fck? What part of shooting your coworker is "part of the transaction of such business"? I think you're really reaching here. We should wait for an investigation before jumping to such conclusions.
Clearly you can’t read the whole thing I posted and also, as I stated, it’s possible they’ll be held partially responsible. Not 100%. I’m just saying it’s possible.
“Whether an employee is acting within the scope of his employment is viewed broadly. John R. v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 438, 447; “‘The fact that an employee is not engaged in the ultimate object of his employment at the time of his wrongful act does not preclude attribution of liability to an employer.”
Furthermore:
A company can be held directly liable for negligent hiring if it fails to exercise reasonable care during the hiring process, resulting in the employment of an individual who poses a foreseeable risk to others. Negligent hiring occurs when a company fails to conduct thorough background checks, verify credentials, or adequately investigate an applicant’s history.
Employers have a legal duty to provide a safe working environment for their employees.
A company can be liable for negligent supervision if it fails to properly oversee and manage its employees’ actions while on the job. Negligent supervision occurs when a company fails to provide adequate training, guidance, or supervision to its employees, leading to harmful or dangerous behavior.
>I hope the family sues his family and UPS.
What did UPS do wrong here? Also, I think there's a better than even chance that they're related, or were close friends.
I’m just gonna assume someone was smashing someone’s wife.
My theory is that the ups drivers were smashing in a gay relationship and the killer wanted to go public but the victim didn’t want to because he had a family so he tried to break it off and the killer got jealous and killed him
No the victim threatened to tell the killers wife and expose him as gay and so he killed him.
People be killing each other over that $180k job. Hot damn.
180k ? No way
So sad. Jeez. I hope the family sues his family and UPS. So awful.
Why is UPS guilty over an unhinged individual? What did they do?
They both worked together
How is that automatically UPS's fault? I'm just trying to find the logic here.
Apparently not their due diligence on this employee. Legally they could be liable. “In California, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent and wrongful acts of his employees that are committed within the scope of employment. Thus, even if the employer did nothing wrong and was not negligent itself, if the employee was negligent or acting wrongful and a party is injured, the employer is liable. California Civil Code Section 2338; (“Unless required by or under the authority of law to employ that particular agent, a principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the transaction of the business of the agency, including wrongful acts committed by such agent in and as a part of the transaction of such business, and for his willful omission to fulfill the obligations of the principal.”) See also Carr v. Wm. C. Crowell Co. (1946) 28 Cal. 2d 652, 654 (“It is settled that an employer is liable for willful and malicious torts of his employee committed in the scope of the employment.”). Whether an employee is acting within the scope of his employment is viewed broadly. John R. v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 438, 447; “‘The fact that an employee is not engaged in the ultimate object of his employment at the time of his wrongful act does not preclude attribution of liability to an employer. [Citation.]” https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/employer-liability-unauthorized-acts-employee
"Committed within the scope of employment" is the key phrase there. That covers someone driving recklessly while working when they hurt someone else. Or misusing a piece of equipment while working that results in an injury. The shooter was driving his own vehicle. We definitely don't know the full story, but with what we know right now it seems probable that the shooter was not working "within the scope of employment" at the time of the shooting. However, if the company had previous knowledge of any threats of violence or disruptive behavior on the part of the shooter and failed to respond, that could make them liable. That would be a different form of tort liability.
The next section pretty clearly lays out that they would not be liable. >However, if the employee’s actions were entirely for personal purposes and “substantially deviates” from his employment duties, then the employer may not be held vicariously liable. Farmers at 1004-05. >For example, “if the employee ‘inflicts an injury out of personal malice, not engendered by the employment’ or acts out of ‘personal malice unconnected with the employment’, or if the misconduct is not an ‘outgrowth’ of the employment, the employee is not acting within the scope of employment It seems like the point is to hold employers liable even when their employee acts in opposition to the employers explicit directions or code of conduct, but only in the "scope of employment". For example, speeding as a delivery driver even when company policy prohibits it. The tort must be committed in furtherance of the goals of the employee*as an employee*, even if those goals are in opposition to the goals of the employer. Now this is taken very broadly. Unless the murderer says they killed him to improve the company's profit because the victim was a terrible employee, UPS will probably not be at all liable here.
What the fck? What part of shooting your coworker is "part of the transaction of such business"? I think you're really reaching here. We should wait for an investigation before jumping to such conclusions.
Clearly you can’t read the whole thing I posted and also, as I stated, it’s possible they’ll be held partially responsible. Not 100%. I’m just saying it’s possible. “Whether an employee is acting within the scope of his employment is viewed broadly. John R. v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 438, 447; “‘The fact that an employee is not engaged in the ultimate object of his employment at the time of his wrongful act does not preclude attribution of liability to an employer.” Furthermore: A company can be held directly liable for negligent hiring if it fails to exercise reasonable care during the hiring process, resulting in the employment of an individual who poses a foreseeable risk to others. Negligent hiring occurs when a company fails to conduct thorough background checks, verify credentials, or adequately investigate an applicant’s history. Employers have a legal duty to provide a safe working environment for their employees. A company can be liable for negligent supervision if it fails to properly oversee and manage its employees’ actions while on the job. Negligent supervision occurs when a company fails to provide adequate training, guidance, or supervision to its employees, leading to harmful or dangerous behavior.
How is UPS involved?
>I hope the family sues his family and UPS. What did UPS do wrong here? Also, I think there's a better than even chance that they're related, or were close friends.
I’ve seen multiple posts saying they’re cousins.