Is my employer liable for negligence? I was terminated for failure to maintain my

[jmabry]

misconduct / negligence of an employer

No harm? Personal injury - loss of job, unable to provide for my 2 children, emotional distress,.. the list goes on.

Respondeat Superior

Respondeat superior, which means "let the master answer," is a legal principle that holds an employer liable for the negligence of its employees in certain circumstances. In order for respondeat superior to apply, the negligent act must have occurred within the "scope of employment." But when exactly is an employee acting within the scope of employment?

Generally, an employer may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee if:

The injury occurred while the employee was on the clock,
The injury was caused by an activity the employee was hired to perform, and
The employer benefited in some way from the activity the employee was performing at the time of the injury.

 

[Silverplum]

No harm? Personal injury - loss of job, unable to provide for my 2 children, emotional distress,.. the list goes on.

Respondeat Superior

Respondeat superior, which means "let the master answer," is a legal principle that holds an employer liable for the negligence of its employees in certain circumstances. In order for respondeat superior to apply, the negligent act must have occurred within the "scope of employment." But when exactly is an employee acting within the scope of employment?

Generally, an employer may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee if:

The injury occurred while the employee was on the clock,
The injury was caused by an activity the employee was hired to perform, and
The employer benefited in some way from the activity the employee was performing at the time of the injury.

I'm sorry to read that you still take no responsibility for yourself.

 

[Zigner]

No harm? Personal injury - loss of job, unable to provide for my 2 children, emotional distress,.. the list goes on.

Respondeat Superior

Respondeat superior, which means "let the master answer," is a legal principle that holds an employer liable for the negligence of its employees in certain circumstances. In order for respondeat superior to apply, the negligent act must have occurred within the "scope of employment." But when exactly is an employee acting within the scope of employment?

Generally, an employer may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee if:

The injury occurred while the employee was on the clock,
The injury was caused by an activity the employee was hired to perform, and
The employer benefited in some way from the activity the employee was performing at the time of the injury.

You were NOT physically injured (which is what that applies to). As to the rest, as I said earlier, the employer had no duty to babysit you regarding your license status. As was said above, take responsibility.

 

[eerelations]

No harm? Personal injury - loss of job, unable to provide for my 2 children, emotional distress,.. the list goes on.

Respondeat Superior

Respondeat superior, which means "let the master answer," is a legal principle that holds an employer liable for the negligence of its employees in certain circumstances. In order for respondeat superior to apply, the negligent act must have occurred within the "scope of employment." But when exactly is an employee acting within the scope of employment?

Generally, an employer may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee if:

The injury occurred while the employee was on the clock,
The injury was caused by an activity the employee was hired to perform, and
The employer benefited in some way from the activity the employee was performing at the time of the injury.

Whaaaat??? You're saying that your employer is responsible for you losing your job due to your negligence?

Sorry, you've completely misunderstood this concept. This concept means that if an employee injures someone else, the employee's employer may be held responsible. It certainly doesn't mean that the employer is responsible for any actions the employee takes that result in the employee's loss of employment. Wow, like duh.

 

[cbg]

Still another legal concept that the OP does not understand.

The only mistake the employer made was not firing him sooner.

One more time: The employer had no duty under the law to keep you informed of your license status. No duty - no liability and no negligence.

If you disagree, please post a link to the law that says your employer and not you have the responsibility for keeping track of the status of your license.

 

[Chyvan]

with the knowledge that was provided to my employer on 4 other occasions during my employment, that I had a suspended license

All this would have done is . . .

loss of job, unable to provide for my 2 children, emotional distress,

make this happen sooner. How would you have been better off if they fired you before now?

 

[not2cleverRed]

No harm? Personal injury - loss of job, unable to provide for my 2 children, emotional distress,.. the list goes on.

Respondeat Superior

Respondeat superior, which means "let the master answer," is a legal principle that holds an employer liable for the negligence of its employees in certain circumstances. In order for respondeat superior to apply, the negligent act must have occurred within the "scope of employment." But when exactly is an employee acting within the scope of employment?

Generally, an employer may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee if:

The injury occurred while the employee was on the clock,
The injury was caused by an activity the employee was hired to perform, and
The employer benefited in some way from the activity the employee was performing at the time of the injury.

Right.

Your employer should have called you into the office the moment they became aware of this and fired you.

Then they should have called the police and requested help dealing with a disgruntled ex-employee...

Because that would have been so much better.

Even if your employer was your MOTHER, as a legal adult, the responsibility is yours to keep the DMV aware of your current address.

 

[Silverplum]

Maybe his employer IS his mother.

 

[jmabry]

Maybe it's your mother, idiot!

 

[Zigner]

Maybe it's your mother, idiot!

I don't think either of those is likely. In fact, it's much more likely that she's yours.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Maybe it's your mother, idiot!

No. If it were my mother, you would have been fired the first time. She expected 5 year olds to make beds that could pass military inspection, so she would expect an actual adult with spouse and children to take responsibility for his actions.

You have not been harmed. If your employer had a financial responsibility to anyone it would be society (paying a fine for violating a rule - not firing you earlier).

 

[jmabry]

there's your law... I forgot which wannabe lawyer asked for this.

FEDERAL LAW
TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VI - MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS
PART B - COMMERCIAL
CHAPTER 313 - COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS

§ 31304.
Employer responsibilities:

An employer may not knowingly allow an employee to operate a commercial motor vehicle in the United States during a period in which the employee—

(1) has a driver’s license revoked, suspended, or canceled by a State, has lost the right to operate a commercial motor vehicle in a State, or has been disqualified from operating a commercial motor
vehicle; or

(2) has more than one driver’s license (except as allowed under section 31302 of this title).

 

[justalayman]

You're point? They fired you so you wouldn't be driving without a license since you couldn't seem to control the urge yourself.

 

[eerelations]

FEDERAL LAW
TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VI - MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS
PART B - COMMERCIAL
CHAPTER 313 - COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS

§ 31304.
Employer responsibilities:

An employer may not knowingly allow an employee to operate a commercial motor vehicle in the United States during a period in which the employee—

(1) has a driver’s license revoked, suspended, or canceled by a State, has lost the right to operate a commercial motor vehicle in a State, or has been disqualified from operating a commercial motor
vehicle; or

(2) has more than one driver’s license (except as allowed under section 31302 of this title).

Just because an organization breaks a law doesn't mean that employees of that organization may sue the organization for breaking the law. And just because an organization complies with a law by firing an employee in accordance with a law definitely doesn't mean said employee has a valid lawsuit against the employer.

You seem to be angry with us because we're not lawyers...since continuing to post here isn't going to turn us into lawyers, why are you still posting here? Why don't you simply pay a real lawyer to repeat what we've been saying to you?

 

[jmabry]

you responded... I think you got the point!

And if you didn't understand my point, now I understand why lurk around these forums anonymously, giving BS advice. Maybe you should educate yourself on the topic of discussion, before providing useless advice and wasting people's time.