Timeline for In the US, are employers liable for torts caused by their employees working from home
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 14 at 19:46 | comment | added | ruakh | Re: "nobody told or expected you to drive (and indeed they'd probably prefer you weren't driving during meetings)": True, but if the accident was caused by driving during a meeting, then it was also caused by taking a meeting while driving. Judging from the OP, the company did expect the employee to take the meeting, despite knowing that the employee was driving. | |
| Jun 14 at 16:31 | comment | added | Eugene | Accepting this answer, since it's both good and the only one about the US, as was specified in the OP lol | |
| Jun 14 at 16:30 | vote | accept | Eugene | ||
| Jun 14 at 9:26 | comment | added | Stuart F | OTOH, in practice, the company may prefer to pay up from their business insurance rather than risk long and expensive litigation over liability. But a lot will depend on circumstances. (The victim may also prefer to sue a rich company with liability rather than an individual who may have just been fired for gross negligence.) | |
| Jun 13 at 21:13 | comment | added | ohwilleke | Some states use a test broader than the "close connection test" called the "frolic and detour" test. This asks if the employee was embarking on a frolic and not merely a detour from their job related activities. See law.cornell.edu/wex/frolic_and_detour citing O'Connor v. McDonald's Restaurants (Cal. App. 1990) law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/220/25.html | |
| Jun 13 at 18:40 | history | answered | Nuclear Hoagie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |