I guess I will put this here since their is not a fleet owners sections,

Do you have a fire extinguisher? Have you ever needed one? I could argue the same point...that the chances that you would need a fire extinguisher are so slim that there really isn't any reason to have one. However, if you DO need one, it is better to have it. Same goes for firearms. You could carry one every day for your entire life and never need it. Or you could be at the convenience store picking up some milk on your way home tomorrow when some thug pulls a gun, pistol whips the customer in line ahead of them and points it at the 16 y/o kid at the register, demanding cash.

 

U.S. Fifth Circuit Defines "In The Course of Employment" for Jones Act Cases

Beech V Hercules Drilling - employee on drilling rig working a night shift shows his pistol to a fellow worker and accidentally shoots and kills his co-worker. Initially judgement was entered against Hercules, it was reversed on appeal BECAUSE having the weapon on the rig violated company policy, thus taking the employee out of the "scope of employment". In other words had there been no policy against having weapons, Hercules Drilling would have been liable for the worker's death.

Baker v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, 502 F. 2d 638 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1974 - Google Scholar

Baker v Baltimore & Ohio RR - employee displays pistol to co-worker during lunch, then stows the pistol in his jacket. When called back to work, employee picks up his coat, dislodging the pistol which discharged injuring the coworker. B&O RR had no policy against weapons. Judgement found against Baltimore & Ohio RR, upheld on appeal.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=54063

Eddie Cluck V Union Pacific. Co-worker had a pistol in his luggage which "accidentally" discharged injuring Eddie Cluck. Cluck lost the case because his lawyer sucked and entered improper jury instructions. The appellate court ruled that it wasn't the lower courts duty to provide the correct jury instruction.

http://zomichiganemploymentlaw.wnj.com/?m=201803

 

This has nothing to do with my eyesight (although reading legal briefs does strain the eyes), nor my admittedly liberal views, nor the 2nd amendment. The only point I've been raising here is that if the employer permits an employee to carry a weapon the employer is exposed to legal liability.

 

If we keep this up, we might actually find a case that answers the original question. I.E. a single case where the employer was successfully sued by the criminal's family.
To recap, of the 8 cases you have found

0 about an employee successfully getting sued by the criminal's family. (Or criminal if lived)
1 was about an employee starting a fire
1 was a settlement
1 no info save it happened 102 years ago.
2 more no info, but with the batting average I'm going to have to say those don't apply either.
3 were flat out "won" by the employee. By won I mean dismissed, no damages awarded.
1 the employer lost because it happened at a railroad (specific laws for railroad workers) and no policy. Happened 50 years ago.

So, worst case, if one works at a railroad one need to make perfectly sure not to accidentally discharge their firearm and injure someone.

P.S. Keeping posting about cases that don't answer the question just makes your case that much weaker. Or even worse, you keep posting cases where the employer got the case dismissed.

 

My original post on this thread:

Your response to Ridgeline's post:

All I've said from the outset - an employer assumes liability for the actions of an employee when the employee is acting "within the scope of employment".

The first case I posted the employee was smoking in a hotel room while filling out expense reports, started a fire, and the company was held liable. The "bad act" - smoking - was not related to the employee's job. However the court ruled he was a "24 hour man" and using the hotel room as a makeshift office - see any similarities to truck driving?

For the 3 cases that were "flat out won" by the employer - why did the employer win? BECAUSE THERE WAS A COMPANY POLICY BARRING WEAPONS. Without that policy in place (enforced or not), summary judgment would not have been granted.

Garretzen v. Duenckel is from 1872 and involves an employee loading and misfiring a rifle which struck a bystander across the street. This case is the basis for much of respondant superior law.

[qoute=]
The true ground upon which a master avoids responsibility for most of the willful acts of his servants, when unauthorized by him, is that they are not done in the course of the servant's employment. When they are so done, the master is liable for them. The servant in this case was unquestionably aiming to execute the order of his principle or master. He was acting within the scope of this authority and engaged if furtherance of his master's business. It makes no difference that he disobeyed instructions. [/quote]

In Maniaci V Inter-Urban Express (1916) an employee of a shipping company compelled a consignee to sign a BOL. After signing, the employee shot the consignee in the chest and arm. Inter Urban Express was held liable for the employees actions although none of the traditional principles for imputation of liability applied. There was neither an express command for the assault nor an awareness on the part of the employer that the assault would occur. There was no expectation or representation that the employer would be bound by the act of the employee. Yet the employer was held liable. Maniaci is still considered valid case law.

I quoted a lawyer who in essence said "if you want to allow employees to be armed TALK TO A LAWYER FIRST" because you can be held liable. What constitutes "scope of employment" is both broad and narrow, it will always come down to the facts of the particular case.

And if you didn't like that lawyer, here's another:
https://www.stradley.com/~/media/Fi...sowners/FileAttachment/ans-businessowners.pdf

 

Understand what you are saying, as I stated, just asking out loud, it's just something I had not run into before? Just wondered what others were doing.

 

That is just it, aside from all of the opinions, and what is legal or not, the bigger issue for me is I am a bit convoluted over the issue, on one hand I am a firm believer in the second, even though I don't carry or even own a hand gun, and because of that if I have a no gun policy I would feel like a hypocrite, I'm probably over thinking it, just got in from a swing, tired, you all have a great Sunday.

 

Here is the bottom line

It is your company, you make the decisions on company policy. Consulting the appropriate professionals, like your legal advisor and your insurance company will provide you with options. Then it is a matter of your decision.
Draft the policy, have it reviewed by above, then implement. If you decide that it is no firearms, then you need to enforce it equally to all, same applies to allowing them. This is why you really need to have information from sources that can clearly define the legal position.

 

Or if one thing gentelroger has posted... Make the policy, put it in a policy book somewhere in the office and ignore it from there. If something happens the op can pull out the policy to protect the company, but he is also allowing the employees to protect themselves.