# If you get drunk on an airplane, forcing it to be diverted, should you lose your job? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 6, 2011, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208 "2011-12-06T01:01:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/81 "2011-12-07T21:35:55Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > They haven’t been banned for life from airplanes. There doesn’t even appear to be any type of government sanction against them flying in the future. I know. The line of discussion started when **Una** suggested that they should be banned from flying for life in post #38, not due to any perception that this has actually happened, or would happen. > [@](#): > > Air Canada acting as a private company has said they have banned them from any future flights. > > You are arguing a private company should not allowed to refuse service. If you want to make that argument go right ahead, I completely disagree with it. No one is making that argument. If Air Canada wants to ban them from their airplanes, they are certainly able to do so. I still think that a _lifetime_ ban is excessive, but it’s not my place to force Air Canada to do business with anyone. The argument is against a complete lifetime flying ban. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/82 "2011-12-07T23:09:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > That’s a tautology. It doesn’t really support the claim that this one incident is sufficient to essentially ruin someone’s life over it. I really do get what you’re saying, but seriously… “I got shitfaced and attacked a flight attendant on company money, lost my cushy job and now I can’t get an equally cushy one because I’m not allowed to fly.” sounds an awful lot like the setup for a “first world problems” joke, and I’m just not feeling the sympathy for these guys that you do. ---
**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:** [December 7, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/83 "2011-12-07T23:10:13Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Hopefully Mr. Spoons can clarify Canadian law on this point, but I would be willing > to bet it does not differ much from US law. > > Under US law employers may be liable for loss to 3rd parties caused by their employees > anytime the employees are functioning as the employers’ agents, regardless of whether > the loss was caused by “job-related” activity. The presumption may be rebuttable on a > case-by-case basis, but I have a feeling no court in Canada is going to throw out any action > brought against RIM and with good reason. > > The good reason lies in the fact that an employee, even a well-paid employee, may not > be able to afford resitution for loss caused by his behavior. Here we have over 300 > potential claimants, and two drunks may not have the wherewithall to take care of all of them. Have a look at [Cimpean v. Payton, 2008 CanLII 32808 (ON SC)](http://canlii.ca/t/1z9r5), in which the court found that the argument that the good behaviour clause of an employment contract may be sufficient to attract vicatious liability to the employer despite the bad act otherwise having nothing to do with the employer. This is about as close as you’re going to find to the RIM matter. Then have a look at the decision by a higher level court in that same matter, [Cimpean v. Payton, 2008 CanLII 60976 (ON SC)](http://canlii.ca/t/21nd4), in which that lower court’s decision was shot to hell by the higher court: > [@](#): > > [15] Members of the public are neither express nor implied parties to the Contract in question. There is no expectation or reliance placed by the public on the good behaviour clause or power to discipline (after conduct unbecoming has occurred) provision in the Contract. > > [16] If, as the Motions Court judge held, those terms in the Contract could support a finding that either the Bucks or the NBA owed duties in tort or contract to members of the public in relation to the private activities of players under contract, there would be no activity, no matter how personal or domestic, that would fall outside the scope of employment; and a duty of care would be owed by employers to indeterminant members of the public in respect of unforeseeable harm caused by its players. In that vicarious liability requires no fault on the part of the employer, the employer becomes a virtual insurer for the employees’ tortious conduct. > > [17] The Supreme Court of Canada in Cooper v. Hobart, 2001 SCC 79 (CanLII), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537 and Edwards v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 567 held that there was not a duty of care owed to the public on the part of bodies with authority to regulate professions even in circumstances where the regulators had foreknowledge of actual harm. If statutory regulators whose role is to act in the public interest owe no such duty of care to the public for conduct of their members, there is a serious question as to whether the Motions Court judge was correct in holding that the contractual provisions within a private contract of employment create a duty of care. > > [18] In order for there to be vicarious liability there must be a strong and meaningful connection on the facts between the employer’s enterprise and the alleged wrongful acts. There is a serious question that the alleged 2:00 a.m. sidewalk assault against the plaintiffs by the players has the required connection to the business of the Bucks or the NBA. What it comes down to is proximity. I don’t think that there is sufficient proximity to make RIM vicariously liable for its senior executives getting shit faced and violent while on a business flight, despite there be a company policy requiring good good behaviour at all times. ---
**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:** [December 7, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/84 "2011-12-07T23:15:10Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Their lives won’t be ruined; they can still [travel in Canada](http://www.greyhound.ca/)… Except for the risk of being decapitated by a fellow passenger (Prairies), or being stabbed by a fellow passenger (Wawa – I declined the file), or the bus being rolled over by a fellow passenger (TBay – I was in on the Coroner’s inquest). I think I’d prefer my chances with violent, drunk RIM executives. ---
**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:** [December 7, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/85 "2011-12-07T23:18:17Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > The court made an interesting ruling: yes, beer is indeed part of the bavarian lifestyle, so the sale of it shouldn’t be forbidden; but while the workers can do what they like during lunch break, once they return to their job, they must not be drunk. (The court didn’t say how the workers are to achieve this miracle - drinking alcohol-free beer is abomination to real beer drinkers, and taking 2-hour lunches is usually frowned upon by the company. Leaves only Friday afternoon to drink and leave early.). I wonder if drinking some barrier cream prior to drinking beer might do the trick at preventing the absorption of alcohol? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/86 "2011-12-08T00:42:43Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > I really do get what you’re saying, but seriously… “I got shitfaced and attacked a flight attendant on company money, lost my cushy job and now I can’t get an equally cushy one because I’m not allowed to fly.” sounds an awful lot like the setup for a “first world problems” joke, and I’m just not feeling the sympathy for these guys that you do. I don’t feel _any_ sympathy for them. As I said before, my preference would be that no one should drink any alcohol ever and that this incident just confirms my view. I just think your “solution” is unjust. I don’t have to have any sympathy for someone to understand that they shouldn’t be oppressed out of a sense of recreational outrage. There are people who kill other people who don’t face a lifetime ban on airline travel. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/87 "2011-12-08T00:46:38Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > There are people who kill other people who don’t face a lifetime ban on airline travel. I have tried and tried but I don’t even know how to respond to this non sequiter. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/88 "2011-12-08T01:20:46Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > [Since beating on flight attendants is not something even remotely related to the drunks’ jobs, I doubt if anyone (the drunks, the carrier, the crew, or the passengers) would have a cause of action againt RIM, so while you Declan might go after RIM for the cost of the criminal court ordered restitution, I wouldn’t. First I would have to say that is what I would do, but I can imagine that these two boneheads are probably acting on advice of counsel and shutting up. But I do notice a disparity in what the papers reported on being some sort of altercation between the two boneheads and the flight crew and having to restrain them for the duration. They have some sort of donneybrook on the plane with the flight crew, get restrained, most likely with the aid of other passengers and yet they dont as far as I could read, have a date to appear in court for assault or a number of different things that I would think they could have gotten nailed with, some how they just walked out of RCMP detention, with a court ordered mandate to pay restitution. So while I dont condone what they did, I might be thinking of forcing a suit just to publicize exactly what escalated this situation to a physical donneybrook and take my chances. Declan ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/89 "2011-12-08T01:25:24Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > I have tried and tried but I don’t even know how to respond to this non sequiter. The point is that a lifetime ban is excessive. If a murderer can be considered to have rehabilitated enough to be released out into general society after a few decades, why does a guy who gets drunk and starts a fight on an airplane need a lifetime ban? Surely, if murderers can be reformed in 20 years, so can these jerks. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/90 "2011-12-08T01:41:20Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > … and yet they dont as far as I could read, have a date to appear in court for assault or a number of different things that I would think they could have gotten nailed with, some how they just walked out of RCMP detention, with a court ordered mandate to pay restitution. They appeared in court on November 29. [Cite from the Globe and Mail](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/rim-suspends-employees-fined-71000-after-drunken-flight-debacle/article2256853/) of Friday, December 2, 2011: > [@](#): > > Mr. Campbell and Mr. Wilson pleaded guilty to mischief Tuesday at a court appearance in Richmond, where the Vancouver airport is located, and received suspended sentences and probation for a year, the RCMP said. “Mischief” is a crime under [section 430 of the Criminal Code](http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-191.html#h-116). It looks like they put these guys into a courtroom as soon as possible. (Not unusual, IME, for a person arrested and held in custody.) It would have been a docket court, where they could plead guilty and receive a sentence on the spot; or plead not guilty, and schedule a trial. Obviously, they opted not to have a trial, instead pleading guilty; and getting suspended sentences, a year’s probation, and the restitution order. So they have already had their day in court. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/91 "2011-12-08T01:42:39Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > I have tried and tried but I don’t even know how to respond to this non sequiter. I means that punishments should be proportionate to the severity of the trespass. You don’t impose a severe curtailment on someone’s freedom of movement without a proportionate crime or threat from that person. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/92 "2011-12-08T02:36:58Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > So while I dont condone what they did, I might be thinking of forcing a suit just to publicize exactly what escalated this situation to a physical donneybrook and take my chances. > > Declan Against RIM? Just how would RIM have escalated the situation? Or perhaps you were referring to Air Canada, but given that the drunks already pled guilty, and thereby would have had to have admitted the material facts in court, I don’t see much hope for them in then going after Air Canada. What I do see is a nuisance suit. Our courts usually have the loser pay much of the winner’s legal fees (costs), and if it is a nuisance suit, then often all of the winner’s legal fees. In this matter, I would expect that the court would order that the drunks pay enough money up front into court to cover the anticipated legal costs of the defendant(s). I think that an action against RIM or Air Canada, or the distillery, or the maker of the ties that cut off the circulation to the drunks’ brains, would be a good way for the drunks to go bankrupt while further embarassing themselves and advertising to potential employers just how very bad their judgment is. They could make further fools of themselves at great cost to their pocket books and future careers, or they could simply man-up. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/93 "2011-12-08T03:09:49Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > What I do see is a nuisance suit. Me too. I’m having a hard time finding a cause of action against Air Canada or RIM. Air Canada against RIM? No, AC will be paid their restitution, and the matter will end. I cannot see any other claim they might have. The unscheduled stop and all expenses cost about $70,000, and that’s what AC will receive under the restitution order. After payment, Air Canada will be square, in other words. Passengers against Air Canada? No, AC did its best to accommodate the passengers in Vancouver at no cost to those passengers. Then, the passengers got where they were going as quickly as possible under the circumstances, as per their contract with Air Canada. Ignoring this incident, look at something similar: if there had been something else that required a landing in Vancouver (say, a mechanical problem with the aircraft), would the passengers have a right to sue AC? I don’t think so. Passengers against RIM? No, I think RIM (the corporation) is too far removed from this debacle. It may have been their employees’ fault, but I don’t think _respondeat superior_ would apply here. Besides, those troublesome employees have been ordered to pay restitution. **Declan** , just because I’m interested: who do you think should sue whom, and why? ---
**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:** [December 8, 2011, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/94 "2011-12-08T03:42:11Z")
Careful what you say, Declan, for one wrong word and we’re going to sue Gorsnak. ---
**Author:** ![Oliveritaly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oliveritaly/32/15233_2.png) [@Oliveritaly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oliveritaly)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/95 "2011-12-08T12:45:53Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > The problem with that attitude is that all studies show that the very first thing that is impaired by alcohol, before all others, is self-evaluation. You believe you are steadier, quicker etc. than you actually (as measured) are. So while you believe you’re still in control of yourself, walking normally and not showing anything, outside observers will see another drunk. … Okay. All of the above is true. I’m sure I’m not faster, steadier or whatever when it comes to standing in a long line, moving forward slowly, lifting a 20lbs bag over my head, sitting down and then buckling a seat belt. I’m exactly as fast and the persons in front of me. These are not complicated tasks, beers or no beers. At my age I’d hope I a: know my limits and b: know when not to exceed them. The only people on the aircraft that matter are the crew. If they think I’m okay to fly that’s all that matters. I’ve never had an issue, ever. This is a moot point unless we fly somewhere together (I vote Canaries!) … I say others can’t tell I’ve drank or not. If they can, I am reasonably certain, it has no effect on them whatsoever … > [@constanze](#): > > Why is that important, and why use alcohol? If you are afraid of flying, there are special seminars to help overcome that. If you are taking a lot of late-night flights, a mild sleeping pill would be much better. > > A long-time flight is stressful for the body anyway - the cramped position, the dry air, the confined space - without adding alcohol that further dehydrates (increasing headaches afterwards). A sleeping pill and lots of water or juice would be far better for you. Listen, my love of beer is YOUR fault you damned German!!! Kidding (But really I love your biers!). Other than the fear of flying (which thankfully I don’t have) part, you are exactly right. There are better things you can do to ensure you sleep through a flight. I have and will again use sleeping pills. But normally I like to have beers and jump aboard, the only person I’m affecting is me. > [@constanze](#): > > I’ve read enough stories of Dopers here about seat neighbours who won’t shut up (on planes, but also on buses or trains, even when people are reading or wearing headphones) to know that it’s not the alcohol alone to blame there… Sure there are seat neighbors that suck regardless of drinking … ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/96 "2011-12-08T14:44:15Z")
Outside of pilots and crew, who should not have alcohol in their systems at all while on duty, I really don’t think a drink or two will seriously impair most people. Outside of those with medical issues (including addiction) one beer, or even two (well, maybe a problem for the small of stature) is not going to prevent them from evacuating if required in a timely manner. Nor does it turn them into belligerent, combative jerks. Based upon that, I can only conclude that the two executives in question had more than a drink or two apiece. If it took the whole flight crew to get them under control there were certainly out of control, which implies a lot of drink, and being irresponsible enough to render themselves incompetent in public. Any way you slice that, it’s bad. (While, personally, I’d prefer no alcohol on board airplanes at all, I acknowledge that’s a personal preference and so long as it is permitted by the Powers That Be I won’t say jack about it on the airplane. If my fellow passengers can keep themselves well behaved they can drink. I’d also prefer they not drink themselves either sick or unconscious, as I view that as a safety issue not just for them, but for those of us who might have to climb over them in the event of a Serious Problem.) ---
**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:** [December 8, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/97 "2011-12-08T14:56:28Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Outside of pilots and crew, who should not have alcohol in their systems at all while on duty, I really don’t think a drink or two will seriously impair most people. Outside of those with medical issues (including addiction) one beer, or even two (well, maybe a problem for the small of stature) is not going to prevent them from evacuating if required in a timely manner. Nor does it turn them into belligerent, combative jerks. > > Based upon that, I can only conclude that the two executives in question had more than a drink or two apiece. If it took the whole flight crew to get them under control there were certainly out of control, which implies a lot of drink, and being irresponsible enough to render themselves incompetent in public. Any way you slice that, it’s bad. It’s possible that these two were on the “Instant Asshole – Just Add Alcohol” end of the bell curve. If so, it was incumbent upon them to abstain while in public (unless this was their very first experience with alcohol, which I rather doubt). ---
**Author:** ![Corresponder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@Corresponder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corresponder)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/98 "2011-12-08T19:28:47Z")
I want to take a different approach with a couple of points: 1. If someone does something which indicates he is likely to do something else in connection with his work which would be seriously detrimental, then it is in the interest of his employer to fire him, provided there is real proof of the bad behavior and not just exaggerated hearsay. 2. When did employment become a patronizing situation in which the employer has to right to act in loco parentis or as a moral judge of the employee? Too many people think an employer has the right or obligation to “punish” an employee in one way or another, for instance by suspending or firing him. Working should be a contract between equals, where if either side doesn’t like the situation he has the right to terminate the arrangement, but there shouldn’t be an assumption that if you are fired than there is something wrong with you, especially in the moral sense. If you resign from your job, does this reflect badly on the employer? Do people think there must be something morally wrong with him? Suppose a business owner demonstrates egregious behavior on an airplane. Should all his employees resign in disgust? 3. Even if you believe that firing or suspending should be looked at as a form of punishment, then you should ask yourself, who gives the employer the right to judge and assign additional punishment to people who have already been judged and punished by the government? Will there be some assurance that this is done fairly? Why not have other people judge and punish the individual? For instance, if my neighbor gets into the news for misbehavior, do I have the right to take away some of his possessions or throw eggs at his house because I personally think he deserves more punishment that the law has already provided? Do I have the right to demand he move away? ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/99 "2011-12-08T19:33:54Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Have a look at (A) Cimpean v. Payton, 2008 CanLII 32808 (ON SC), in which the court found that the argument that the good behaviour clause of an employment contract may be sufficient to attract vicatious liability to the employer despite the bad act otherwise having nothing to do with the employer. This is about as close as you’re going to find to the RIM matter. Then have a look at the decision by a higher level court in that same matter, (B) Cimpean v. Payton, 2008 CanLII 60976 (ON SC), in which that lower court’s decision was shot to hell by the higher court: There are sure to have been court cases where the facts much more closely resemble those of the matter we are discussing. The differences in fact between _Cimpean v Payton_ and our \*Passenger v RIM \* are so great as to render _Cimpean_ irrelevant, assuming the RIM drunks were taking a business trip, and not a vacation. _Cimpean_ defendants Payton, Caffey and Cassel were NBA players at the time of the incident leading to the court case. From link (A) above: > [@](#): > > The players attended an adult entertainment lounge where they interacted with one of the entertainers, the Respondent Vida Asante. > > - Subsequently, when Ms. Asante left the club accompanied by the Respondent Adrian Cimpean, who is now her husband, and another female entertainer, they were confronted by the players. > > - The co-Defendant Payton yelled sexually and racially explicit threatening and derogatory comments at the Respondents Cimpean and Asante and the other female entertainer. > > - The players then assaulted Cimpean. The co-Defendant Payton alone assaulted Asante. _Cimpean_ plaintiffs held that liability was imputed to the NBA team and league for systematic failure to enforce the morals clause section of the standard NBA contract thus promoting habitual lawless bahavior by its employees, and for knowing that the specific defendant players were a danger to the public, but failing to take measures to correct their behavior. However, Payton et al were not fulfilling any work requirement by going to a strip joint, and the (B) appellate court ruled that this fact was overridingly significant. In contrast, if the RIM drunks were on a business trip, then the flight was a work _requirement:_ they _had_ to make the flight to fulfill their duties as employees. Therefore They were in the course of employment-connected activity during the entire flight. Now, suppose Payton and the others had been flying to play in an NBA game and had gotten drunk and disorderly and forced a premature landing. I cannot imagine any reasonable court ruling the NBA team and league to be exempt from vicarious liability. And suppose on the other hand some mishap had forced the RIM execs’ plane to make an unscheduled 24-hour return to Vancouver, and the execs had taken the opportunity provided by the extra time off to get into a brawl in a strip joint. I cannot imagine any reasonable court ruling RIM to be vicariously liable, since although phyical the execs’ presence was required on a plane flight, it was not required in a strip joint. > [@Muffin](#): > > What it comes down to is proximity. I don’t think that there is sufficient proximity to make RIM vicariously liable for its senior executives getting shit faced and violent while on a business flight, despite there be a company policy requiring good good behaviour at all times. Sufficient proximity to RIM’s enterprise as an employer is IMO beyond doubt. The company morals clause is not ground for 3rd party recovery, either in the case of RIM or the NBA, but it is not needed to provide such ground in the RIM case. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/100 "2011-12-08T19:39:50Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Passengers against RIM? No, I think RIM (the corporation) is too far removed from this debacle. It may have been their employees’ fault, but I don’t think _respondeat superior_ would apply here. Besides, those troublesome employees have been ordered to pay restitution. Please see reply #99 for reasoning that _respondeat_ in fact should apply. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208.md?page=6)