05-05-2016, 03:16 PM
(05-05-2016, 07:49 AM)xxlt Wrote: I really don't think your question is relevant, although I understand your frustration about it being overlooked. There have been numerous cases (I've read about them in books that include the legal citations and I have looked the cases up and confirmed their existence) where employers were held responsible for the actions of their employees because they either a) knew what the employee did, or b) reasonably should have known. In this case what was happening at the cemetery falls squarely under "b." So, it makes "a" irrelevant. Case law says the employer should know - precisely because of the contract it made with the people you knew (and all the others) who had burial plots there - if the employee is protecting the property. That was his job - to care for it! The employer should reasonably be expected to know if an employee is caring for the things and the place he or she was hired to care for!That door swings both ways. If the grounds were properly maintained, plus while on the property the owners never saw anything amiss in behavior and no one ever reported the after hours activities at the caretakers residence, well, then it is reasonable for the ownership to not know. How exactly do you feel it is reasonably expected that the owners would know even if all appearances indicated nothing was going on? The burden to demonstrate it is reasonable is on the plaintiff. Present that case.
I readily admit, and even said, some of this thread's posts are confusing and sometimes in this thread and others I have trouble following Brad's train of thought. But, some of the posts questioning him reflect either some latent hostility toward him or just a misunderstanding of certain legal principles (see above in this post for an example of same).
As you saw in my first post in this thread, I am definitely not among those with hostility towards Brad. In fact, even though this whole situation disrespects the final resting place of over a dozen of my relatives, neither this topic nor any past debates Brad has had on this forum dissuade me from having sympathy for him. I just think legally and morally he is wrong here.
