disgruntled employee keyed my car

[pibblemom42]

I work in a factory in NC, and my husband among others spoke to HR upon their request about a woman being under the influence of drugs at work. HR spoke with her and subsequently sent her home, but did not terminate her. Their company policy is to either escort you off the premise, or watch you leave in your vehicle, yet they did neither. They also have no cameras in the parking lot. Once she left the facility, she keyed our rental car, presumably because she saw my husband speaking to HR and blames him for her dismissal. Are they liable for being negligent? We are now responsible for paying for the repairs ourselves up to our deductible.

 

[Zigner]

The employer is not responsible for the criminal activity. Sue the bad gal in small claims court.

 

[Just Blue]

I work in a factory in NC, and my husband among others spoke to HR upon their request about a woman being under the influence of drugs at work. HR spoke with her and subsequently sent her home, but did not terminate her. Their company policy is to either escort you off the premise, or watch you leave in your vehicle, yet they did neither. They also have no cameras in the parking lot. Once she left the facility, she keyed our rental car, presumably because she saw my husband speaking to HR and blames him for her dismissal. Are they liable for being negligent? We are now responsible for paying for the repairs ourselves up to our deductible.

What proof do you have that she keyed the car?

 

[pibblemom42]

What proof do you have that she keyed the car?

I'm aware that proof is a strong word, but she was the only person to leave the building between the time we arrived and the time we left. That coupled with the timing of it all led some of the cops to say we had enough evidence and they wanted to issue a warrant, but the magistrate ultimately ruled against it.

 

[pibblemom42]

The employer is not responsible for the criminal activity. Sue the bad gal in small claims court.

I would if it wouldn't end up being more expensive, and if she wasn't a junkie that I knew I would get nothing from. Also, I don't feel as if they are responsible for the crime committed necessarily, but moreso responsible for being negligent. I felt as if there should be some sort of rule on the books about employers being responsible for the safety of their employees by way of security or cameras. That's mostly what this post was asking about(if they are responsible solely for the reason that they have done nothing to protect us and also failed to follow their own policies).

 

[Zigner]

I would if it wouldn't end up being more expensive, and if she wasn't a junkie that I knew I would get nothing from. Also, I don't feel as if they are responsible for the crime committed necessarily, but moreso responsible for being negligent. I felt as if there should be some sort of rule on the books about employers being responsible for the safety of their employees by way of security or cameras. That's mostly what this post was asking about(if they are responsible solely for the reason that they have done nothing to protect us and also failed to follow their own policies).

The employer wasn't negligent, nor did they commit the crime. Look to the criminal.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Their company policy is to either escort you off the premise, or watch you leave in your vehicle, yet they did neither.

Is that a written policy, or do you simply think that that is their practice?

If they have a written policy that terminated employees are to be escorted or monitored, and they failed to do that, you may be able to successfully sue for damages. Attempting such a suit may lead to your husband being escorted or monitored.

 

[Taxing Matters]

From what you've said I can see a possible case for negligence here, but it would not be an easy one to make. If the company owns or controls the parking lot then it has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect the employees and cars that are parked there. What is reasonable depends on a lot of factors, like the history of any trouble there, what kinds of problems are reasonably foreseeable to occur, what it would cost the company to implement various protection measures, etc. Unless there had been some history of problems with vandalism, theft, assaults, etc., in the parking lot the company may not have had reason to believe much in the way of security was really needed in the lot. So whether there really needed to be security cameras or whatever there is an open question. And in this instance you aren't alleging some random act of vandalism but rather that another employee did it out of spite. So you may need to prove that the employer knew that the employee might do something like this and should have at least followed its own procedures to accompany her off the property.

But think about this: if you sue your employer over this, it will not make your employer happy. You may find that you and your husband are on the short trip to job termination if you decide to do that. And that would be perfectly legal for the employer to do. Is getting reimbursed your deductible worth both you losing your jobs?

 

[pibblemom42]

From what you've said I can see a possible case for negligence here, but it would not be an easy one to make. If the company owns or controls the parking lot then it has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect the employees and cars that are parked there. What is reasonable depends on a lot of factors, like the history of any trouble there, what kinds of problems are reasonably foreseeable to occur, what it would cost the company to implement various protection measures, etc. Unless there had been some history of problems with vandalism, theft, assaults, etc., in the parking lot the company may not have had reason to believe much in the way of security was really needed in the lot. So whether there really needed to be security cameras or whatever there is an open question. And in this instance you aren't alleging some random act of vandalism but rather that another employee did it out of spite. So you may need to prove that the employer knew that the employee might do something like this and should have at least followed its own procedures to accompany her off the property.

But think about this: if you sue your employer over this, it will not make your employer happy. You may find that you and your husband are on the short trip to job termination if you decide to do that. And that would be perfectly legal for the employer to do. Is getting reimbursed your deductible worth both you losing your jobs?

We aren't looking to sue them, we just want to know what they are legally responsible for before we have a meeting with them. There have been many many many times that people and possessions have been threatened by employees, ex employees and significant others of employees, so they know the safety factor. Also, some of us have been asking for a parking lot camera for a while simply because there are no cameras on the premises and since the building is not climate controlled the doors and bay doors are typically left open, meaning anyone can enter from numerous points. It would be nice to have help with the costs, but we really want reform on policies and procedures. This was a small incident, but it shows that anything could happen and no one would know about it. If there was a camera, we would have indisputable evidence and they could have took out a warrant, and we would not be left footing the bill.

 

[pibblemom42]

Is that a written policy, or do you simply think that that is their practice?

If they have a written policy that terminated employees are to be escorted or monitored, and they failed to do that, you may be able to successfully sue for damages. Attempting such a suit may lead to your husband being escorted or monitored.

It is a written policy per the company that a supervisor is to escort an employee off the premise if they are terminated or even just sent home as a disciplinary action. We are not going to sue the company, but would like to have a meeting with them about policy and safety reform where we are knowledgeable and accurate in our reasoning.

 

[Zigner]

If there was a camera, we would have indisputable evidence and they could have took out a warrant, and we would not be left footing the bill.

No warrant would have been taken out. You would end up in small claims court either way.

 

[adjusterjack]

We aren't looking to sue them, we just want to know what they are legally responsible for before we have a meeting with them.

What difference does legal responsibility make if you aren't willing to sue. Telling somebody he's legally responsible doesn't get him to write you a check if he disagrees. And having a face off with your employer is probably a bad idea.

If there was a camera, we would have indisputable evidence and they could have took out a warrant, and we would not be left footing the bill.

Sure you would have been left footing the bill. Getting somebody convicted of a crime doesn't mean you get any money out of it.

Ultimately, you are going to have to resign yourself to the fact that sometimes bad things happen for which you get no money and have to foot the bill yourself.

 

[pibblemom42]

What difference does legal responsibility make if you aren't willing to sue. Telling somebody he's legally responsible doesn't get him to write you a check if he disagrees. And having a face off with your employer is probably a bad idea.


Sure you would have been left footing the bill. Getting somebody convicted of a crime doesn't mean you get any money out of it.

Ultimately, you are going to have to resign yourself to the fact that sometimes bad things happen for which you get no money and have to foot the bill yourself.

Once again, we aren't trying to get the employer to pay the bill, we are trying to bring evidence to them that they are practicing unsafe habits that they could potentially end up in real trouble for later, that way we can get better workplace policies and protection. As of right now, we and our possessions are basically sitting ducks. We want better written polices and repercussions for not following them when an employee has disciplinary action taken against them, and a camera in the parking lot. The reason for this question was to find out what the bare minimum they have to do legally is that way we had a baseline for what reasonable requests would be.

No, it doesn't guarantee any money, but you have a much higher chance that they will be court ordered to pay if you have hard evidence.

 

[Zigner]

You may wish to speak to a local attorney, as there is no way to evaluate whether or not the employer "should" have cameras, etc., in the parking area.

 

[cbg]

I'm aware that proof is a strong word, but she was the only person to leave the building between the time we arrived and the time we left. That coupled with the timing of it all led some of the cops to say we had enough evidence and they wanted to issue a warrant, but the magistrate ultimately ruled against it.

So, what proof do you have that it was done by someone who was in the building and not from the outside? (I haven't finished the thread yet - apologies if this comes up later)