# 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:** 6
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/101 "2011-12-08T19:59:15Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > There are sure to have been court cases where the facts much more closely resemble those of the matter we are discussing. Here’s an excellent database, so please provide links to such Canadian cases so that we can discuss them: [CANLII](http://www.canlii.org/). ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/102 "2011-12-08T20:04:22Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Here’s an excellent database, so please provide links to such Canadian cases so that we can discuss them: [CANLII](http://www.canlii.org/). I am not relying on case law to make my point; you are, so you provide the link. ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/103 "2011-12-08T20:12:08Z")
The 5-minute limit on editing is a silly pain in the ass. In **red bold** below is a garbled section which it would obviously do no harm to edit 10-20-40-80 munutes or 10-20-40-80 _days_ after submission: > [@colonial](#): > > 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. Correction: …although **the execs’ physical presence** was required… ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/104 "2011-12-08T20:20:55Z")
Here’s what I want to know: Why should a plane be diverted just because some people got disorderly? They’re not terrorists, they’re not going to blow anything up. Just lock them in the bathroom and proceed normally. I’d just wait it out ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/105 "2011-12-08T20:33:28Z")
A few more comments on lawyer Spoons’ take here: > [@Spoons](#): > > 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. Unaddressed: The RIM execs were totally, ridiculously, grossly intoxicated. If AC continued to serve obvious drunks then there is an obvious negligence case vs AC, and I do not think legal training is needed to say so. If the RIM execs were not obviously drunk when they got on the plane but became so during the flight then so much the worse for AC. As for the cost to the passengers that was certainly not limited to a few meals and a night in a hotel. Whether at work or on vacation they or their employers all lost at least one day’s pay. Then there are the various costs of being late in Beijing such as missed connections elswhere, non-refundable hotel deposits, lost business, and the list goes on and on and on. I would think AC is sweating all this out right along with RIM. You can be close to 100% sure they have a lawyer or two working on it now, full time, as we speak. ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/106 "2011-12-08T21:00:08Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > The 5-minute limit on editing is a silly pain in the ass. > > In **red bold** below is a garbled section which it would obviously do no harm > to edit 10-20-40-80 munutes or 10-20-40-80 _days_ after submission: > Correction: …although **the execs’ physical presence** was required… In order for the board to determine which edits do or do not substantially change the meaning of the underlying phrase, they’d have to do full natural language processing. Not an easy problem. ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/107 "2011-12-08T21:13:20Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > I am not relying on case law to make my point; you are, so you provide the link. I did. If you are not relying on case law, then please cite the Canadian statute that you are relying on. ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/108 "2011-12-08T22:11:47Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > I did. If you are not relying on case law, then please cite the Canadian statute that you are relying on. Let me put it this way: I stand on my own reasoning- my knowledge of fact and use of logic- with limited reference to whatever law may apply, since my knowlwdge of the law is sketchy. You are the one who started making case citation part of the debate. However, the case you introduced was not helpful. It may be that other law disallows action against RIM and I am unaware of it. However, it may be that other law _does_ allow action against RIM, and YOU are unaware of it. I am not going to go plowing through Canadian law sites to support my argument, although it would be nice if someone could provide relevant citation regardless of whether or not RIM is shielded from liability. The case you cited before provides no such shield. If you want to try again be my guest. ---
**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/109 "2011-12-08T22:25:11Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Let me put it this way: I stand on my own reasoning- my knowledge of fact > and use of logic- with limited reference to whatever law may apply, since my > knowlwdge of the law is sketchy. > . . . > I am not going to go plowing through Canadian law sites to support my argument 'K, bye. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/110 "2011-12-08T22:35:14Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > A few more comments on lawyer Spoons’ take here… \ I don’t think any of AC’s lawyers are sweating, or indeed, working on it. First, we have AC’s conditions of carriage ([cite here](http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/before/documents/International%20Tariffs%20-%20Section%20I.pdf), warning PDF). We find the following on page 91, under rule 0085: > [@](#): > > Schedules, Delays and Cancellation of Flights > > (A) Schedules > > … Schedules are subject to change without notice and carrier assumes no responsibility for passenger making connections… > > (B) Cancellations > > (1) Carrier undertakes to use its best efforts to carry the passenger and baggage with reasonable dispatch, but no particular time is fixed for the commencement or completion of carriage. Subject thereto carrier may, without notice, substitute alternate carriers or aircraft and may alter the route, add stopovers or omit the stopping places shown on the face of the ticket in case of necessity. > > (2) Carrier may, without notice … divert … or delay any flight … and determine if any departure or landing should be made, without any liability except to refund in accordance with its tariffs the fare and baggage charges for any unused portion of the ticket, when it would be advisable to do so: > > (A) Because of any fact beyond its control … or > (B) Because of any fact not reasonably to be foreseen, anticipated, or predicted… So AC is not responsible for missed connections cause by a diversion or a delay. The only liability it will assume is for the unused portion of a ticket–and if the passengers got where they were going (i.e. Beijing), which they did, AC is not liable for that. Next, we have the Montreal Convention on international air travel. [Article 19](http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/3/5/11624.pdf), on Delay (PDF): > [@](#): > > Article 19. Delay > > The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures. I’d say that the AC flight crew took all reasonably required measures to avoid damage–to the aircraft and to other passengers. Better to divert to Vancouver and get rid of a problem, than to allow it to continue for the next seven or eight hours. If you still want to sue, then you may find this case encouraging: _[Mohammad c. Air Canada](http://canlii.ca/en/qc/qccq/doc/2010/2010qccq6858/2010qccq6858.html)_, 2010 QCCQ 6858 (CanLII). In brief, a family going from Montreal to Dhaka, return, with multiple connections, experienced delays resulting in missed flights, which required the purchase of new tickets in some cases. In addition to the actual damages they suffered by buying new tickets, they sued for $3000 for inconvenience. And all they got for inconvenience was $150 each. If all I could collect was $150 for “inconvenience,” I don’t think I’d bother. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2011, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/111 "2011-12-08T23:13:45Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Let me put it this way: I stand on my own reasoning- my knowledge of fact > and use of logic- with limited reference to whatever law may apply, since my > knowlwdge of the law is sketchy. > \ In other words you are talking out of your ass. I base that assessment on my own reasoning–my knowledge of fact and use of logic. ---
**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, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/112 "2011-12-08T23:20:40Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > In other words you are talking out of your ass. I base that assessment on my own reasoning–my knowledge of fact and use of logic. When you have time and are in a better mood feel free to join the debate. I doubt you will add anything of value, but maybe you can suprise me. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2011, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/113 "2011-12-09T00:34:58Z")
I notice we have gotten away from the question of RIM’s potential exposure, and I hope our Mr. Spoons can provide more useful information on that note than he does below on the question of AC’s possible exposure. > [@Spoons](#): > > I don’t think any of AC’s lawyers are sweating, or indeed, working on it. Not even a 1/312 chance of a single peep out of the other passengers, huh? I would call that excessively optimistic. > [@Spoons](#): > > First, we have AC’s conditions of carriage (cite here, warning PDF). We find the following on page 91, under rule 0085: > > (A) Schedules > … Schedules are subject to change without notice and carrier assumes no responsibility for passenger making connections… This is not a scheduling issue. > [@Spoons](#): > > (B) Cancellations > (1) Carrier undertakes to use its best efforts to carry the passenger and baggage with reasonable dispatch, but no particular time is fixed for the commencement or completion of carriage. Subject thereto carrier may, without notice, substitute alternate carriers or aircraft and may alter the route, add stopovers or omit the stopping places shown on the face of the ticket in case of necessity. > > (2) Carrier may, without notice … divert … or delay any flight … and determine if any departure or landing should be made, without any liability except to refund in accordance with its tariffs the fare and baggage charges for any unused portion of the ticket, when it would be advisable to do so: > > (A) **Because of any fact beyond its control … or** > > (B) **Because of any fact not reasonably to be foreseen, anticipated, or predicted** … > > So AC is not responsible for missed connections cause by a diversion or a delay. > > The only liability it will assume is for the unused portion of a ticket–and if the passengers got where they were going (i.e. Beijing), which they did, AC is not liable for that. I guess you did not notice my reply #105, so here is a part relevant to the stipulations claimed by AC: “The RIM execs were totally, ridiculously, grossly intoxicated. If AC continued to serve obvious drunks then there is an obvious negligence case vs AC, and I do not think legal training is needed to say so. If the RIM execs were not obviously drunk when they got on the plane but became so during the flight then so much the worse for AC.” A bar owner may be held liable for damages caused by an intoxicated customer who they have over served. AC may be liable under identical reasoning. > [@Spoons](#): > > Next, we have the Montreal Convention on international air travel. Article 19, on Delay (PDF): > > Article 19. Delay > The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it **proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage** or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures. > I’d say that the AC flight crew took all reasonably required measures to avoid damage–to the aircraft and to other passengers. Better to divert to Vancouver and get rid of a problem, than to allow it to continue for the next seven or eight hours. I would say overserving someone might be considered evidence that the carrier’s servants and agents did NOT in fact take all measures that could reasonably be required. > [@Spoons](#): > > If you still want to sue, then you may find this case encouraging: Mohammad c. Air Canada, 2010 QCCQ 6858 (CanLII). In brief, a family going from Montreal to Dhaka, return, with multiple connections, experienced delays resulting in missed flights, which required the purchase of new tickets in some cases. In addition to the actual damages they suffered by buying new tickets, they sued for $3000 for inconvenience. And all they got for inconvenience was $150 each. > > If all I could collect was $150 for “inconvenience,” I don’t think I’d bother. > > The Court therefore grants each passenger that has traveled back to Montreal on August 25th 2007, the sum of $150 each. _Mohammed_ establishes that delayed passengers may have right of action despite citations you provide above, am I right? Mechanical problems appear to have been the initiating cause in _Mohammed_, and since AC was after all motivated by safety considerations court may have had more sympathy than it would be in our case if it is found that AC employees loaded the RIM passengers up with 10-15 strong drinks. Also note that three _Mohammed_ defendants were awarded a total of 3149.59, plus interest and other damages; Court found that Kuwaiti Airlines was liable for considerable damages beyond the $150 convenience award AC had to pay. AC might not be so lucky with any or all the 312 potential claims it is facing in our case. ---
**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 9, 2011, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/114 "2011-12-09T00:50:15Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > If all I could collect was $150 for “inconvenience,” I don’t think I’d bother. I’d settle for $100 if it were one of those new shiny plastic ones (my eyes lit up with anticipation when a stack of C-notes were counted out to me today, but once again my joy was short-lived, for they were not the bling for which I had hoped). What do I have to do to stroke one of the these things? Hell, I’d even fly on Air Canada if they’d give me one of them. Skald, your assessment is correct. Unfortunately, colonial is confusing his own opinion with the law, and is not willing to actually look at what the law says, so when he speaks of debate, really it is just him talking to himself, for without actually looking at the law, a debate on the application of that law to a specific set of facts is meaningless. Up here in Kanukistan, an employer’s vicarious liabilty is not triggered simply because the employee committed an intentional tort while on the job. This is set out by our top court in [Bazley](http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr2-534/1999scr2-534.html), in which the soon-to-be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote the unanimous decision of the Court, setting out that: > [@](#): > > 36 On further analysis, however, this apparently negative policy consideration of when liability would be appropriate is revealed as nothing more than the absence of the twin policies of fair compensation and deterrence that justify vicarious liability. A wrong that is only coincidentally linked to the activity of the employer and duties of the employee cannot justify the imposition of vicarious liability on the employer. To impose vicarious liability on the employer for such a wrong does not respond to common sense notions of fairness. Nor does it serve to deter future harms. Because the wrong is essentially independent of the employment situation, there is little the employer could have done to prevent it. Where vicarious liability is not closely and materially related to a risk introduced or enhanced by the employer, it serves no deterrent purpose, and relegates the employer to the status of an involuntary insurer. I conclude that a meaningful articulation of when vicarious liability should follow in new situations ought to be animated by the twin policy goals of fair compensation and deterrence that underlie the doctrine, rather than by artificial or semantic distinctions. So there we have the law in the Great White: " **A wrong that is only coincidentally linked to the activity of the employer and duties of the employee cannot justify the imposition of vicarious liability on the employer.**" Now let’s turn to the RIM drunks. On its face, their going ape-shit is only coincidentally linked their being on the plane as RIM employees, so unless there was something to make that link more than coincidental, there would not be vicarious liability. That’s where RIM’s good behaviour policy comes into play. In another matter in which the link was apparently only coincidental, a lower court judge thought that a good behaviour contract might be sufficient to establish the non-coincidental link required by the Bazley test. A higher level court shot it down (as set out in my [earlier post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14541544&postcount=83)), applying the principle of Bazley to the good behaviour clause: > [@](#): > > [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. That leaves us with the drunks being on the job not being a sufficient link to establish vicarious liability (Bazley), and RIM having a good behaviour policy not being a sufficent link to establish vicarious liability (Bazley as applied by the Divisional Court). ---
**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 9, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/115 "2011-12-09T00:54:12Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Here’s what I want to know: Why should a plane be diverted just because some people got disorderly? They’re not terrorists, they’re not going to blow anything up. Just lock them in the bathroom and proceed normally. I’d just wait it out That works for me, as long as I can piss on them when I use the bathroom in which they are locked. ---
**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 9, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/116 "2011-12-09T01:17:54Z")
Since Air Canada flight attendents are what they are, they could drive anyone to drink, so their union and Air Canada should be liable. ---
**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 9, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/117 "2011-12-09T02:05:11Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > I guess you did not notice my reply #105… No, I saw it. I simply ignored it, as it was unsupported. If you’re prepared to provide solid citations to relevant Canadian cases or statute law dealing with the pertinent issue, I’ll reconsider my position. > [@](#): > > AC might not be so lucky with any or all the 312 potential claims it is facing > in our case. Hey I showed, through citations, why AC is not liable to the passengers and why it wouldn’t be worth anyone’s while to sue. Now you show me, _through citations_ and not your opinion, why AC is liable to the passengers. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/118 "2011-12-09T15:58:25Z")
I don’t know a whole lot about employment terms in Canada, but the piece that doesn’t fit here is these guys were executives. In the US executives tend to be bargaining employees, meaning they have a specific employment contract, which still has to fit within the legal framework, but can have additional terms and additional compensation. Sort of like a Union of One. So they may have all these cool things like bonuses and golden parachutes, but they may also have clauses like non-compete clauses or personal appearance/behavior clauses which are enforceable at all times. If a non-compete agreement comes up against a government statute, the statute usually wins, but I would not be at all surprised, assuming the RIM executives are bargaining employees with contracts, if they were terminated under some sort of personal conduct clause unique to their position. Poor behavior not generally being a protected class of actions, the odds are good that the statutes aren’t going to step in and rule this clause of the employment contract unenforceable. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/119 "2011-12-09T16:55:23Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Skald, your assessment is correct. Unfortunately, colonial is confusing his own opinion with the law, That is a ridiculous thing to say. I made this unambiguous comment reply# 108: “It may be that other law disallows action against RIM and I am unaware of it.” > [@Muffin](#): > > and is not willing to actually look at what the law says, so when he speaks of debate, really it is just him talking to himself, for without actually looking at the law, a debate on the application of that law to a specific set of facts is meaningless. That is a ridiculous thing to say. I took good look at the law you posted earlier, and made the fully accurate observation that it did not apply to the RIM issue because the facts were so different. > [@Muffin](#): > > Up here in Kanukistan, an employer’s vicarious liabilty is not triggered simply because the employee committed an intentional tort while on the job. This is set out by our top court in Bazley, in which the soon-to-be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote the unanimous decision of the Court, setting out that: > > [http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr2-534/1999scr2-534.html](http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr2-534/1999scr2-534.html) > > Quote: > 36 On further analysis, however, this apparently negative policy consideration of when liability would be appropriate is revealed as nothing more than the absence of the twin policies of fair compensation and deterrence that justify vicarious liability. A wrong that is only coincidentally linked to the activity of the employer and duties of the employee cannot justify the imposition of vicarious liability on the employer. To impose vicarious liability on the employer for such a wrong does not respond to common sense notions of fairness. Nor does it serve to deter future harms. Because the wrong is essentially independent of the employment situation, there is little the employer could have done to prevent it. Where vicarious liability is not closely and materially related to a risk introduced or enhanced by the employer, it serves no deterrent purpose, and relegates the employer to the status of an involuntary insurer. I conclude that a meaningful articulation of when vicarious liability should follow in new situations ought to be animated by the twin policy goals of fair compensation and deterrence that underlie the doctrine, rather than by artificial or semantic distinctions. > > So there we have the law in the Great White: " A wrong that is only coincidentally linked to the activity of the employer and duties of the employee cannot justify the imposition of vicarious liability on the employer." This citation is useful, and it does support your side of the argument. More below, though. > [@Muffin](#): > > Now let’s turn to the RIM drunks. On its face, their going ape-shit is only coincidentally linked their being on the plane as RIM employees, so unless there was something to make that link more than coincidental, there would not be vicarious liability. That is a reasonable inference. However, consider this: suppose it had been not merely two RIM employees, but say 30 of them- all belligerently drunk and assaultive, and too numerous to be quelled by the flight crew. The plane subsequently crash lands with everyone on board either killed or injured. In such an event actual damages would be in the millions, and then there would be consideration for pain, suffering and grief. Total damages would be in the 10s of millions at least, more than even 30 RIM VPs could afford to cover. The facts of this hypothetical case differ only in the numbers and extent of damages from the one we are discussing; there is no difference in principle. For any victim to remain uncompensated due to denial of vicarious liability would create a firestorm of public outrage, and rightly so. I wonder if the Supreme Court of Canada would then follow the logic of _Bazely_ to the bitter end. If it did the legislature would have to take action to clearly define the concept of vicarious liability in a way less favorable to a malefactor’s employer. > [@Muffin](#): > > That’s where RIM’s good behaviour policy comes into play. In another matter in which the link was apparently only coincidental, a lower court judge thought that a good behaviour contract might be sufficient to establish the non-coincidental link required by the Bazley test. A higher level court shot it down (as set out in my earlier post), applying the principle of Bazley to the good behaviour clause: > > Quote: > [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. > > That leaves us with the drunks being on the job not being a sufficient link to establish vicarious liability (Bazley), and RIM having a good behaviour policy not being a sufficent link to establish vicarious liability (Bazley as applied by the Divisional Court). Previously addressed. There was _no_ connection between Payton et al going to a strip joint and their employer’s enterprise. There was a _definite_ connection between the RIM VPs going to China and their employer’s enterprise. The question is whether the connection was close enough to impute liability to RIM. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-get-drunk-on-an-airplane-forcing-it-to-be-diverted-should-you-lose-your-job/605208/120 "2011-12-09T17:01:50Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > **Declan** , just because I’m interested: who do you think should sue whom, and why? Originally I was thinking RIM itself for releasing information, that being the termination notice being sent out wideband, even before the perfumed princes got into Ontario. However its been mentioned that RIM was within its rights with the media action it took. Like I said earlier, I had no problem with them getting canned, I am more interested in what set the situation off. Declan [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=5) [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=7)