SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: unclewest who wrote (75429)10/7/2004 10:05:33 AM
From: mph  Read Replies (1) of 793914
 
Policies like that are generally provoked by liability lawsuits.

There were a couple of recent cases in California where
a customer injured by criminals during a robbery
sued the establishment on a negligence theory.

Without getting into the intricacies of imposition
of liability for third party criminal acts,
these cases basically came down to the court throwing
them out. Basically, gave the judicial imprimatur to
a policy against intervention to prevent robbery, etc.

I suspect what happened in the Long John case is a misapplication of valid company policy.

The policy is to tell employees to cooperate in
a robbery attempt and not to take heroic measures to
thwart it.

That's a good and smart policy.

It is misapplied here when a person defends himself,
rightfully or wrongly, against perceived threat, and is
then fired for violating the policy.

I'd probably take the fired employee's case...I'm pretty creative:-)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News