“The 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.”
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.