[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.
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?
[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.
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?
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?
[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.”
[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.
[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]
[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’)
[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.
[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]
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.
[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
[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.
