How do I determine who is responsible to pay restitution?

[zennjenn]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

My brother is staying with me temporarily. He was kicked out of his accessible apartment (a separate issue) and is staying with me in my less than accessable house. his plan was to save up money for a new place. While with me, he had a home health attendant coming to see him everyday. From the start, she was taking his money out of his account and left him with nothing and no way to move. She took him for about $1300. She also stole several cameras worth about $1200 from me. She was arrested and admitted to taking everything but one camera, which we could not prove she took, though we know that she did. She is awaiting pre-trial.
My question would be, is her employer responsible in any way to pay this back?
Would the bank be responsible to pay back the portion that was taken from his account?
Thanks.

Any advice on this matter would be appreciated.

 

[You Are Guilty]

My question would be, is her employer responsible in any way to pay this back?
Would the bank be responsible to pay back the portion that was taken from his account?

No & no. You can, however, call the prosecutor and they can have the Court arrange/order restitution to be made as part of the criminal case against the aide.

 

[Zigner]

I'm going to deviate slightly from what YAG said. Whether the employer is responsible or not would really depend on the the contract with the employer. Furthermore, the employer *may* (probably does) carry a bond of some sort to cover this sort of situation.

 

[Rexlan]

I agree with Zigner. If the contact and arrangements were made through the employer they would be liable for their employees actions. However, what I read indicates that the individual had direct access to the bank funds so this seems to put the employer out of the picture and infers a direct relationship between OP and the individual. I think the fact that the individual was also employed is secondary to this situation.

The bank does not just give out OP's money so I don't see how they could be involved. It appears that the individual was properly authorized to take the funds and did so. Now there is a dispute as to the amount, but that is not on the banks account.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Respondeat superior only applies to actions taken within the "scope" of the employment. Thus, intentional criminal acts, unless one works for the mafia, are outside the scope of employment for every employee.

At least that's the argument.

 

[Zigner]

Respondeat superior only applies to actions taken within the "scope" of the employment. Thus, intentional criminal acts, unless one works for the mafia, are outside the scope of employment for every employee.

At least that's the argument.

My point is that there may be a contractual matter at play also...

 

[You Are Guilty]

My point is that there may be a contractual matter at play also...

That would have to be one really crappily drafted contract to not only hold the employer liable for an employee's crimes, but also making the victim a third party beneficiary. But true, anything is possible.