Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss
if he was still on company time then it wouldnt matter. From what I understand anyways, I am in taking a insurance liability course right now so it is fresh but I could be misunderstanding what I am reading. He is still driving the company vehicle as well. I don't really feel bad for this company at all though, the knew what they were getting themselves into, maybe just not this magnitude.
|
Company time and company vehicle lend to the argument that vicarious liability attaches, but it's not a finished case at that point. Under common law torts there's a 'frolic v. detour' rule that will relieve an employer of liability for the actions of an employee if the actions are so outside the realm of the employ as to render them a detour, as opposed to a mere frolic. Now defining frolic and detour is a pretty grey area, so there will be some litigation there unless something in Alberta case law is close to on point (which may be the case, I have no idea).
The history of driving violations this guy has also opens the door to a negligent hiring action, so even if vicarious liability isn't found there could be another path.
I'm not really that sympathetic for the company either. I'm all for second chances, but this guy seemed to have a pretty clear history of not giving a damn about safe driving.