General Assembly About To Pass Law Preventing You From Suing Restaurant When Cook Masturbates In Your Food

&#8220The NRA’s theory is that . . . [Employers] would have no liability with their employee releases his special swimmers in your food or kills you on the road doing his employer’s bidding.&#8221

You heard it here first, folks. The General Assembly is pushing an idea drummed up by the NRA that would prevent you from suing a restaurant that allows its employees to masturbate in your food.

Digest that one (pun intended). Under legislation that looks like it will pass the General Assembly, you will not be able to sue a restaurant that allows its employees to masturbate in your food.

There is this thing in the law called “vicarious liability.” It’s been around for 500 years, 238+ of those years it’s been in Georgia. It’s a legal term that means when Employee No Money masturbates in your food because his restaurant could care less what he does with your food, you can not only sue Employee No Money and collect no money, but you can also sue the restaurant, which probably has deeper pockets and should have worked to prevent Employee No Money from masturbating in your food.

Put another way — let’s say your spouse is struck and killed by a drunk driver driving a truck for Wal-Mart. The driver has no insurance and no money. He was driving a truck owned by Wal-Mart for Wal-Mart. While he is liable, Wal-Mart is also liable because the driver was doing Wal-Mart’s bidding. Wal-Mart is vicariously liable. Under the General Assembly’s plan, you could not sue Wal-Mart, only the employee with no money would be liable.

Why are they doing this?

Well, this is the NRA’s latest strategy to try to get it’s gun bill passed. The House passed H.B. 89, which would deal with guns in cars. It made it to the floor of the Senate, but there was hope that a compromise could be struck. So the Senate recommitted it to the Rules Committee awaiting the compromise.

This is what the NRA came up with — killing vicarious liability, a 500 year old legal norm that every one of us benefits from. The NRA’s theory is that the business community, which has opposed the NRA’s scheme to allow employees to gun each other down on employer property, would be okay with getting rid of vicariously liability because, in effect, they’d have no liability when employees gun each other down at the office, just as they would have no liability with their employee releases his special swimmers in your food or kills you on the road doing his employer’s bidding.

*Yeah, yeah, I know an employee releasing his special swimmers in your food is intentional and an argument could be made that an employer is not liability for the intentional misconduct of an employee, but you get the point.

20 comments

  1. StevePerkins says:

    Wow, Erick… of all the law school hypos used to illustrate the doctrine of respondeat superior, my Torts professor never covered this one! You should really consider a career in academia!

    I’m sure that business community would love to do away with vicarious liability, since they would never face responsibly for anything ever again other than product defects (and how many American companies actually build products anymore?). I can even see the Georgia Legislature passing the thing, since I honestly don’t believe they read any of the own bills in full. However, I can’t imagine courts allowing something like that to stand. Even if it weren’t overturned outright, they would riddle it full of holes with creative exceptions.

    Hopefully the mainstream media will pick up on the story (probably a few weeks after the bloggers), and after exposing it the matter will just go away. Do you know what the bill number is anyway, Erick?

  2. Doug Deal says:

    How insensitive Erick. In some cultures, this “special sauce” is a delicacy.

    Nothing this legislature does is a surprise anymore. Are all the bills written by corporate legal councels, NRA lobbyists and friends of the governor?

  3. Skeptical says:

    Why are they doing this? I thought it would be blatantly obvious, but I’ll say it anyway.

    Because they couldn’t give a flying flip about any person that isn’t capable of writing them a giant campaign contribution, i.e. a corporation or a business owner with deep pockets.

    They will protect those that give them to money to stay in power. No one else.

  4. Icarus says:

    Well now, in retrospect, I guess yesterday’s headline of “New Owners, Same Diarrhea” wasn’t so bad after all…

  5. Demonbeck says:

    Does this mean you can’t sue the school system for making your kids stupid, just the individual teachers doing the bidding of the state?

  6. Bull Moose says:

    This is absurd. What in the hell are they doing in Atlanta? This HB 83 needs to DIE. Call it the special interests special bill whatever you want to call it, but call it dead!

  7. meaculpa says:

    Only the NRA could be capable of bringing the words “guns” “masturbation,” “soup,” and “frigtards” together in one sentence.

  8. Idgie Threadgoode says:

    “I know an employee releasing his special swimmers in your food is intentional and an argument could be made that an employer is not liability for the intentional misconduct of an employee, but you get the point.”

    “I was cleaning it and it just went off – honest!”

  9. meaculpa says:

    Masturbation aside, does government telling a business owner or property owner they have to let guns on their premises open the door for a Democrat LtGov in the future to demand business owners or property owners provide health benefits for gay partners or for union organizers “free speech” right to rally in private parking lots?

  10. TPSoCal says:

    I am sorry, but I agree with the proposed change. If the employee causes injury while performing his normal duties, then fine, the company should be sued (i.e. driver of Wal-mart truck run stop sign while delivering something). However, if the employee is acting outside his/her responsibilities, the company should not be liable just cause they have deep pockets.

  11. Bill Simon says:

    So, now that we have a law allowing registered gun owners to carry their guns in restaurants, what’s the status of the law allowing restaurant personnel to point their “Damn! That waitress is SO hot!” emissions into the pot of chili?

  12. Romegaguy says:

    Paul Broun wants to make it a federal crime to masturbate. Life begins at ejaculation you know

Comments are closed.