Classless Lawyers

[Penn]

(05-06-2016, 08:33 AM)xxlt Wrote: Legally, the door swings one way, according to what I was taught by a lawyer in a business law class (designed to protect businesses). What she taught was from a business law book, written by lawyers, and again citing case law. Now I am no lawyer, but I know the "reasonable person" standard and I know businesses are responsible for the conduct of their people. I will leave it there.

I get you aren't holding a voodoo doll of Brad, and I am not weighing in morally, but legally those who think he is out in left field are misinformed. Those who keep saying, "then why did the jury or the judge...," fail to understand that justice is routinely not served in our court system. The system - GASP - does not always get it right. This doesn't mean Brad is a sore loser. It means like every plaintiff wronged, he got a raw deal. If he appealed, the decision may be reversed - this happens all the time. This is why we have appeals courts and a Supreme Court. C'mon guys, I know they don't teach civics any more but geez...

Legally the door does swing both ways because the hinge is in a single word "reasonable".

So let's look a wat a person has seen in learning both sides of civics (but geez, derogatory much?).  You or Brad (the apparent only plaintiffs) present your case of reasonable knowledge or, since you think we are all too ignorant to understand civics, the "you shoulda knowed" stance.  The defense has two choices.

Do nothing or just a little because you didn't prove the owner should have known.  But if the defense feels the jury may agree with the reasonable expectation, they can demonstrate the employee was successful at hiding their wrong activities.  I know it's shocking but people who are doing something wrong they do what they can to hide it.  In this case the mitigating circumstance that make it it easier for the employee to hide activities the employer would not approve is the employee lives on the property.  As part of having a residence their is a balancing act in regards to the employees right to privacy and a life countered against the employer's right and responsibilities.  this makes it easier for an employee to hide wrong doing.  A competent attorney can easily demonstrate why the cemetery didn't know even if they were doing what is reasonable to be aware.  Oh wait, I'm using that word with the door swinging the other way again.  I guess I just don't know civics, like you said.

edit: I know you didn't mean anything rude with your last line. My comments where that relates were meant to be in jest but at the same time to point out that just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't understand.