# don't like your shift? obvious thing to do - set fire to the plane... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 18, 2008, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707 "2008-05-18T01:08:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/81 "2008-05-20T04:39:54Z")
[QUOTE=Dangerosa] Not me, that was my first post in this thread and I didn’t say anything about how customers perceive things. Just how the law (as I understand it - IANAL) and business ethics (which I do have some ability to speak to) treat corporate responsibility for an employees actions. [/QUOTE] But I’d like to see an answer from a US lawyer. Because as I said in my last post, in Australian/English law there is a difference between acts committed by an employee with implied authority and acts committed by an employee that are in no way impliedly authorised. Under our system, an employer would be liable for the former (even if the employee’s act was negligent or reckless) but would not be liable for the latter. And the classic instance of an employee’s act that an employer _would not_ be automatically vicariously liable for is a criminal act committed by an employee while at work which is entirely against the employer’s interest (as here). IME, vicarious liability of employers for the negligent acts of employees is so commonplace that many don’t realise that it is not the case that an employer is simply liable for anything the employee does during working hours. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/82 "2008-05-20T19:10:57Z")
I take your point, **Pinchester** - it really does depend a lot on the applicable jurisdiction’s definition of vicarious liability. For example, in Canada, the Supreme Court has moved away from the “impliedly authorised” standard, and more to a situational standard: did the employer put the employee in the situation and give them the means/opportunity to commit the tort? The issue has arisen in relation to allgeations of pædophilia in schools. In one case where the janitor was found to have molested a child, the Court ruled that the school was not vicariously liable, because nothing in the janitor’s job description included dealing with children, the janitor had no authority over the children, and so on. However in another case, where it was a teacher in a residential school, the Court held that the school was liable, because the teacher’s job description included having authority over the children, being authorised to be in their rooms at night for bed-checks, and so on. Child molestation was obviously not within the teacher’s job description, but the Court held that the school was liable because of the opportunity it had given the teached to have access to the students, without sufficent safeguards to protect the students. Perhaps one of our learned friends will poke their heads in soon - **Gfactor**? **pravnik**? **Billdo**? anyone? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/83 "2008-05-20T19:26:50Z")
1. The employer is definitely not vicariously liable for everything its employees do during working hours. > [@](#): > > The basic rule pertaining to employer liability for the torts of an employee is that the "burden is upon the plaintiff to show, not only that the alleged employee was an employee of the defendant, but that at the time the injury was sustained and the property damage suffered he was engaged in the performance of an act which was within the scope of his employment [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ok&vol=/appeals/1998/&invol=1998okcivapp79](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ok&vol=/appeals/1998/&invol=1998okcivapp79) Plenty of litigation involves the issue of whether whatever the employee did was in the “course and scope” of his employment. 1. Specifically, intentional torts are a bit hairy. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\9901\864&invol=1](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub%5C9901%5C864&invol=1) Courts often try to explain it like this: > [@](#): > > A tort can fall within the scope of a person’s employment even if the conduct was unauthorized or forbidden by the employer. Wilson v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 134 Ill. App. 3d 1084, 1090-91 (1985), citing Restatement (Second) of Agency §230 (1958). The employer may be liable for the “negligent, wilful, malicious or even criminal acts of its employee when such acts are committed in the course of employment and in furtherance of the business of the employer.” Webb v. Jewel Cos., 137 Ill. App. 3d 1004, 1006 (1985). If an intentional tort is motivated in part by an intent to serve the employer’s purpose and in part by the employee’s venting of emotion, the employer may be vicariously liable. Sunseri v. Puccia, 97 Ill. App. 3d 488, 493 (1981). The employer is not liable, however, if the act is committed solely for the employee’s own benefit. Webb, 137 Ill. App. 3d at 1006. The outrageousness of an act may be evidence that the employee has gone beyond the scope of his or her employment, but it is not conclusive. Sunseri, 97 Ill. App. 3d at 493. Thus, in Sunseri, the court held that the question of whether a bartender had exceeded the scope of his employment when he bit off a patron’s ear in a barroom scuffle was one for the jury. Sunseri, 97 Ill. App. 3d at 493. Here, the alleged acts of defendant’s employees are no farther afield than that in Sunseri and are natural examples of the sort of behavior that may be a result of dual motivation. > > An employer’s liability for an intentional tort will also depend in part on whether the act was a predictable outgrowth of acts the employer authorized the employee to perform. Rubin v. Yellow Cab Co., 154 Ill. App. 3d 336, 339 (1987); Restatement (Second) of Agency §228(1)(d) (1958). Although plaintiff’s complaint is not a model of specificity regarding the functions of defendant’s employees, we think one can reasonably infer that the care of disabled children may properly involve a level of physical constraint or compulsion–for example, in bathing a child who does not understand why bathing is necessary. The escalation of proper constraint to battery at the hands of a tired or frustrated caregiver is, sadly, predictable. Thus, a decision as a matter of law on this issue was improper. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=il&vol=app/2004/2030964&invol=3](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=il&vol=app/2004/2030964&invol=3) Simple, right? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/84 "2008-05-20T19:33:02Z")
[QUOTE=Northern Piper] I take your point, **Pinchester** - it really does depend a lot on the applicable jurisdiction’s definition of vicarious liability. For example, in Canada, the Supreme Court has moved away from the “impliedly authorised” standard, and more to a situational standard: did the employer put the employee in the situation and give them the means/opportunity to commit the tort? [/QUOTE] Here an employer might still be held liable for such actions, even if the plaintiff failed to establish course and scope. > [@](#): > > Employers are subject to direct liability for the negligent hiring, retention, or supervision of their employees when third parties are injured by the tortious acts of such unfit, incompetent, or unsuitable employees. In order to recover, the plaintiff must show that the employer knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that its employee’s conduct would subject third parties to an unreasonable risk of harm. > > This theory is completely separate from the respondeat superior theory of vicarious liability because the cause of action is premised on the wrongful conduct of the employer, such that the employer’s negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ar&vol=1998b/981007/ca971478&invol=2](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ar&vol=1998b/981007/ca971478&invol=2) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub\9609\c696602&invol=1](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub%5C9609%5Cc696602&invol=1) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/85 "2008-05-20T19:51:33Z")
Too bad there wasn’t a squeegee kid on the flight to douse the fire. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/86 "2008-05-20T20:18:54Z")
If a company is not responsible for the actions of their employees, whose actions is it responsible for? Middle management? Higher? After all, aren’t CEOs also employees? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/87 "2008-05-20T20:37:59Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Is Winnipeg all \*that \* unfabulous a place for a young gay guy, though? Compared to Marytylermoorepolis, even? [/QUOTE] I believe the plane was heading for Regina, not Winnipeg. Perhaps the young gay guy misheard the destination, and really, really did not want to go to Vagina? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/88 "2008-05-20T20:58:05Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Here an employer might still be held liable for such actions, even if the plaintiff failed to establish course and scope. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ar&vol=1998b/981007/ca971478&invol=2](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ar&vol=1998b/981007/ca971478&invol=2) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub\9609\c696602&invol=1](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub%5C9609%5Cc696602&invol=1) [/QUOTE] So I’d think that the employee’s training records would be crucial. Even if it were impossible to screen for this, all FAs go through extensive training (or used to, anyhow.) Did this kid have a perfect attendance record, or did he blow off classes because they were boring? How were his evaluations? Was there an indication that he was unsuitable before being placed on duty? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/89 "2008-05-20T20:58:37Z")
[QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic] I believe the plane was heading for Regina, not Winnipeg. Perhaps the young gay guy misheard the destination, and really, really did not want to go to Vagina? [/QUOTE] Perhaps he misheard twice and really did want to go to Fargay? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/90 "2008-05-20T21:03:28Z")
[QUOTE=Gorsnak] $300 flight coupon is a horrible gesture. Better not to have offered anything beyond any compensation for missed connections, etc. If you’re going to make any offer as a gesture of goodwill for accidentally nearly killing your passengers, it has to have some significant value. $300 is just a slap in the face. [/QUOTE] I had a horrible hotel experience in Florida once, and the response to my complaint was, yes, a voucher for that hotel. Vouchers are fine if you volunteer for bumping, but I’d guess that a fair number of passengers never want to see this airline again, so the value of the voucher is zero - like the value to me of that hotel voucher. So this is a cheap “solution” for the airline - especially since to use it some people might have to put their own money into a flight. $300 in cash, while still not much, would have been better. As for me, the nicest thing I’ve ever heard from a NWA employee is “your flight is canceled, we’re putting you on American.” ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/91 "2008-05-21T03:03:47Z")
[QUOTE=Alessan] If a company is not responsible for the actions of their employees, whose actions is it responsible for? Middle management? Higher? After all, aren’t CEOs also employees? [/QUOTE] You’re misreading. They are generally responsible for an employee’s actions when the employee is acting as one. In the broadest terms, it’s only when the employee does something totally off the planet, while happening to be at work, that questions arise. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/92 "2008-05-21T03:28:23Z")
[QUOTE=Princhester] You’re misreading. They are generally responsible for an employee’s actions when the employee is acting as one. In the broadest terms, it’s only when the employee does something totally off the planet, while happening to be at work, that questions arise. [/QUOTE] More on respondeat superior: [http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2002/nov02/respondeat-superior.htm](http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2002/nov02/respondeat-superior.htm) frolic and detour: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/9460791.html](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/9460791.html) ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/93 "2008-05-21T04:49:45Z")
Thank you, **Gfactor** , for supplying the legal information. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/94 "2008-05-21T07:36:13Z")
[QUOTE=Princhester] It’s amazing how steep it feels. Of course, descending 62.5 feet/second at (say) 200 knots (I hope that’s conservative) is only 11 degrees from horizontal. I don’t doubt that it \*feels \* like a screaming nosedive. [/quote] Very conservative. A jet airliner would be doing more like 450 knots reducing to 300-250 knots at lower levels (below 10,000’) ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/95 "2008-05-21T07:42:12Z")
[QUOTE=1920s Style “Death Ray”] Very conservative. A jet airliner would be doing more like 450 knots reducing to 300-250 knots at lower levels (below 10,000’) [/QUOTE] Reminds me: Making the steep descent into HK’s old Kai Tak airport, my senses were certain that the plane was coming to a stop in mid-air. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/96 "2008-05-21T08:08:24Z")
[QUOTE=1920s Style “Death Ray”] Very conservative. A jet airliner would be doing more like 450 knots reducing to 300-250 knots at lower levels (below 10,000’) [/QUOTE] So actually only about 4.7 degrees down. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/97 "2008-05-21T08:43:03Z")
Yes, your point is strengthened rather than diminished. A normal descent is about 3 degrees so 4.5 - 5 degrees will probably feel quite unusual to the passengers and they’ll likely interpret it as being a lot steeper. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/98 "2008-05-21T13:32:36Z")
[QUOTE=Broomstick] as far as I’m concerned he should be banned from the skies period [/QUOTE] As far as I’m concerned, they should let the passengers draw lots for an opportunity to launch him on Air Elbonia. ---
**Author:** ![Kythereia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e8c25b/32.png) [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/99 "2008-05-21T14:26:10Z")
[QUOTE=Muffin] Too bad there wasn’t a squeegee kid on the flight to douse the fire. [/QUOTE] All the more reason not to squirt the kid in the face. 😉 Is NWA in a good position to handle a lawsuit from the passengers? I keep hearing noise about how American airlines are rapidly raising prices and charging for luggage checks to keep up with the cost of fuel–would this lead them to settle quicker on a lawsuit right now than otherwise? _curious_ ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707/100 "2008-05-21T14:44:56Z")
[QUOTE=Kythereia] All the more reason not to squirt the kid in the face. 😉 Is NWA in a good position to handle a lawsuit from the passengers? I keep hearing noise about how American airlines are rapidly raising prices and charging for luggage checks to keep up with the cost of fuel–would this lead them to settle quicker on a lawsuit right now than otherwise? _curious_ [/QUOTE] Actually, the Warsaw Convention probably protects the airline from any real liabity. [http://www.iata.org/NR/ContentConnector/CS2000/Siteinterface/sites/legal/file/warsaw.pdf](http://www.iata.org/NR/ContentConnector/CS2000/Siteinterface/sites/legal/file/warsaw.pdf) (liability limited to 16,600 Special Drawing Rights, which is about $25K). ETA: Ok, actually, it’s probably the Montreal Convention now: [http://www.condonlaw.com/newsletters/sept\_oct\_2006.pdf](http://www.condonlaw.com/newsletters/sept_oct_2006.pdf) (liability unlimited) But the substantive limitations on liability were not modified by the new convention. [http://library.findlaw.com/2004/Mar/25/133356.html](http://library.findlaw.com/2004/Mar/25/133356.html) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=530](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=530) (no liability for mental injuries) [http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/255/255.F3d.1044.00-35069.html](http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/255/255.F3d.1044.00-35069.html) (Convention applies to intentional torts) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-your-shift-obvious-thing-to-do-set-fire-to-the-plane/449707.md?page=6)