-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Employer sue former employee for damages
- Thread Starter ryanvk
- Start date
- Status
mightymoose
Moderator
Depends on the kind of damage and how it was caused.
cbg
Super Moderator
With all due respect, since this is a US board, you will probably have something of a wait if you are only looking for responses from Canadians....
respondeat superior
You've pulled a "180" on us.
You originally asked if an employee was liable to the employer for "causing damage to vehicles ". The logical assumption being that the employee damaged property belonging to the employer.
"Logical" because why would an employer have a claim against an employee unless the employee had committed some wrong directly affecting the employer?
_________________________
Now you're asking not whether the employee is liable to the employer, but whether the employer is responsible to a third party for the actions of the employee.
If it is a "former" employee, no.
If it is a current employee or one that was employed at the time of the incident, then it depends on whether (1) the employee was acting in the course of his employment, and briefly, (2) whether or not the conduct of the employee gives rise to a cause of action in favor of the third party.*
If both (1) and (2) are proven, then the employee is jointly liable with the employee under the ancient theory of respondeat superior. (The master must answer for his servant) Ergo, your vicarious liability.
And that rule of law obtains in Canada, England and the USA.
[*] Of course the employer is not liable for every misdeed committed by his workman.
As a general rule in order to hold the employer responsible, the damage or injury complained of must have been something reasonably foreseeable considering the duties, performances, risks and nature of the employment. And each incident will be judged on its particular circumstances.
(The scientific method with its empirically predictable results is not a term associated with the field of law.)
You've pulled a "180" on us.
You originally asked if an employee was liable to the employer for "causing damage to vehicles ". The logical assumption being that the employee damaged property belonging to the employer.
"Logical" because why would an employer have a claim against an employee unless the employee had committed some wrong directly affecting the employer?
_________________________
Now you're asking not whether the employee is liable to the employer, but whether the employer is responsible to a third party for the actions of the employee.
If it is a "former" employee, no.
If it is a current employee or one that was employed at the time of the incident, then it depends on whether (1) the employee was acting in the course of his employment, and briefly, (2) whether or not the conduct of the employee gives rise to a cause of action in favor of the third party.*
If both (1) and (2) are proven, then the employee is jointly liable with the employee under the ancient theory of respondeat superior. (The master must answer for his servant) Ergo, your vicarious liability.
And that rule of law obtains in Canada, England and the USA.
[*] Of course the employer is not liable for every misdeed committed by his workman.
As a general rule in order to hold the employer responsible, the damage or injury complained of must have been something reasonably foreseeable considering the duties, performances, risks and nature of the employment. And each incident will be judged on its particular circumstances.
(The scientific method with its empirically predictable results is not a term associated with the field of law.)
Last edited:
- Status
Share this page
