In his trial court decision, Judge George concluded that the
Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to allege a viable claim for vicarious liability
on the part of a Defendant employer for actions of the employee who allegedly
struck and killed a victim while driving the company car under the influence of
alcohol.
The court ruled in this fashion as none of the negligence allegations
involved conduct committed during the course and scope of the driver’s
employment. The court emphasized that
there were no specific allegations in the Complaint that the Defendant driver
was working or acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time
of the accident.
The court additionally
noted that, even if the Plaintiff had properly pled a claim for vicarious
liability on the part of the employer for the actions of the driver, there was a
lack of any factual dispute that would entitle the case to proceed to a jury on the liability issues presented.
More specifically, the court noted that it appeared to the
Plaintiff’s claim that the employer had a duty to secure a vehicle from being
operated by an unlicensed driver who had been expressly prohibited from
operating the vehicle. Judge George stated that he had not located any case law
which placed a duty upon one to take affirmative steps to avoid criminal acts
of another where there was no obvious known risk of such criminal acts.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click
this LINK.
Source: “Digest of Recent Cases.” Pennsylvania
Law Weekly (July 24, 2018).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.