Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Harassment case
Message-ID: <1005@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Dec-85 14:11:25 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.1005
Posted: Mon Dec 30 14:11:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Dec-85 17:22:21 EST
References: <704@petrus.UUCP> <6100011@prism.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 45
Summary: fine != damages

In article <6100011@prism.UUCP> dawn@prism.UUCP writes:
>
>	In Boston recently a truck driver ignored or didn't see signs warning
>	of a low bridge clearance, and ran into the bridge, causing
>	extensive damage.  For this he was fined ($200 I think).
>	Because he was operating a company-owned truck at the time, his
>	employer was also fined the cost of repairing the bridge (around
>	$200,000).  Obviously, the employer had no way of knowing at the
>	time that their driver would, through his negligence, destroy a
>	bridge, nor could they resonably have been aware of it unless the
>	driver telephoned his intentions to his boss that morning.  
>	Nevertheless, the employer was still held to be responsible.

You're glossing over an important distinction between a fine
(which is a criminal or quasi-criminal penalty and serves
social goals of justice, deterrent, etc.) and damages, which
are awarded to compensate for damage done to someone. The distinction
gets blurred, particularly in the U.S., by concepts such as punitive
damages, and also by restitution awards at criminal trials. However,
there is a clear distinction.

It's likely, from the facts you reported, that the $200 was a fine,
perhaps for "careless driving" or the appropriate Massachusetts
equivalent. The $200,000, on the other hand, would have been an
award to the city or whoever owns the bridge, to pay them back
for the cost of repairing it. Damages need carry no stigma; you've
broken something so you pay for it.

It's quite normal in tort law for a corporation to be vicariously
liable for the acts of its employees. This is usually IN PLACE OF personal
liability of the employee, particularly where the employee is
acting in the normal course of his duties (in this case, driving
for the employer). The theory behind it relates primarily to the fact
that the employer is better able to estimate and insure against the
risks posed by having a pool of employees who go out and damage things.
Of course, the fact that the employee is not liable in tort (since
his employer is) doesn't take away from the fact that he broke the
rules of the road, or whatever, and therefore a (quasi-)criminal
fine will still apply to him.

Dave Sherman (yes, I'm a lawyer)
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
-- 
{  ihnp4!utzoo  pesnta  utcs  hcr  decvax!utcsri  }  !lsuc!dave