05-05-2016, 06:35 AM
I don't see where I said anything about the caretaker not knowing what was going on?
But the answer to the question is, no, there is no evidence the cemetery knew about him giving alcohol to teens. Where your argument falls apart in the legal world is the cemetery ownership cannot fix a problem if they don't know the problem exists. Since you make it clear you are just assuming they knew, obviously this wasn't even entered into evidence in the trial. That may have made all the difference.
As far as it being their property, I know of 2 cases in 2 states with employees receiving living quarters as partial job compensation that might apply in Kentucky (neither case was in KY). Owners of the properties were not held liable for tenants/employees who did things they shouldn't have in the residences or on the areas considered to be a part of the residence, and while not on duty because the owners had no way of knowing about the activities. Therefore they were considered tenants and not employees.
But the answer to the question is, no, there is no evidence the cemetery knew about him giving alcohol to teens. Where your argument falls apart in the legal world is the cemetery ownership cannot fix a problem if they don't know the problem exists. Since you make it clear you are just assuming they knew, obviously this wasn't even entered into evidence in the trial. That may have made all the difference.
As far as it being their property, I know of 2 cases in 2 states with employees receiving living quarters as partial job compensation that might apply in Kentucky (neither case was in KY). Owners of the properties were not held liable for tenants/employees who did things they shouldn't have in the residences or on the areas considered to be a part of the residence, and while not on duty because the owners had no way of knowing about the activities. Therefore they were considered tenants and not employees.
