Classless Lawyers

[Belsnickel]

(05-05-2016, 09:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Finally the owner of the cemetery could be held responsible for the actions of the caretaker, but only if the negligence involved his job responsibilities.  That is to say that the owner could be held responsible if the caretaker was negligent for letting the kids have parties there, but they would not be held liable if he did something like provide the alcohol.  The liability of an owner for the actions of an employee or agent only apply to duties involved in the course of employment.  For example Kroger would be responsible if one of their truck drivers had a wreck while on the job, but they would not be responsible if he robbed a gas station.  There are some exceptions to this rule (like a day care hiring a child abuser) but generally that is the law.

The other part of this that makes me feel like the cemetery would not be liable for the caretaker's **** wittage is that from my understanding of the event based on the reading of these posts is that to get from the party to the cemetery itself, there was a gate that had to be passed through. That, if I were on a jury, would signal to me that the caretaker was allowing a party at his home, but not in the cemetery property. The property owners may be the same, but that separation is distinct. The cemetery would be treated as a landlord in relation to the caretaker's home. If I allow people to leave drunk from my apartment and they crash I may be liable, but my landlord certainly isn't.

That's the way I view it, anyway.