Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
I'm not sure how much the agency relationship plays into this. In fact, I think that's a pretty weak claim as employers typically aren't liable for the intentional torts of their agents.
A bailment claim is what seems to fit best, at least if you want access to the deep pocket.
And UGA, making people pay for their wrongs isn't exactly a new thing. I guess you can continue to ignore me when I explain to you that the 3-million figure is in no way representative of what the plaintiff will probably end up with... but I guess it offends you that anyone ever has to compensate another person for a dignity tort?
|
It offends me that we compensate people when their own idiocy was a big part of the problem, and it offends me when we hold people who were only at best indirectly involved the most responsible financially.
This guy could have taken a lot of precautions to avoid nude photos of his wife being in the hands of McDonald's employees or anyone else for that matter. Instead, it becomes McDonald's burden and that seems nutty.
As often happens in my ridiculous posting on GreekChat, I've argued myself into a more extreme position than I probably really hold. I don't mind people being compensated when they are victimized by others. But they should bear responsibility for their own actions and we should be really careful about who we make pay. Only the people actually responsible should have to pay. It should be really hard to tie in a third party simply because they have more money and yet, I think we allow it to happen pretty frequently. We allow people's sense that the victims are entitled to be compensated to override holding the people responsible responsible.
As I've said before, I'm really curious as to what exactly transpired and knowing that would play a big part in determining how much happened because of their roles McDonald's employees or exactly what kind of a bailment existed if any and who can logically be thought to be involved in it.
Threaded Mode
