Posted on 07/13/2004 7:25:30 PM PDT by killjoy
ping
I seemed to be the only one who thought it was outrageous that New Yorkers had to pay for a security detail for the mayor's mistress, while also covering his wife and kids. When does the government get off giving my money to support an adulterous affair? Or some drunkerd?
Politicians perks should cease the second their behavior becomes illegal or immoral with my money.
The commission of a crime can never be within the duties of a public official. This ruling, if appealed, will be reversed.
Is the bastard at least going to meet bubba in jail?
In other words, they should have no perks? ;)
He already served his stiff sentence of a whole 100 days.
Let him sign over his pension.
Of course he was "on duty" - this guarantees there will be a giant piece of the action for the extortionists at the Bar Association.
This ruling makes some sense to me. It is perfectly normal for a court to hold that an employer liable for the damages its employee causes while acting within the scope of the employer's duties. I am sure there are hundreds of cases where the employer has been held liable for the damages caused when an employee runs a stop sign.
However, it's worth noting that the employer, while liable, is only secondarily liable. The employee is primarily liable. Thus, here, if the US has to pay the plaintiff, it should be able to recover that payment from Janklow.
I remember reading something a while back that a Police Officer can be sued personally in civil court for what he does on the job. How would that apply to this?
Uh, Yes! Unless you don't want to be a killjoy.
FReeper Motorcycle Hooligan |
|
Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list |
That is ridiculous. The scope of his employment did not include speeding through a stop sign.
I'm no attorney, but it seems to me there are clearly established legal guidelines for determining when someone is on duty or off duty, driving in the course of their work or out on a jaunt.
Stupid rat judge! Criminal acts are not within the scope of employment. Just as the feds don't have to foresee he was a possible child molester, bank robber, or serial killer, they don't have to foresee he would pay attn and run through stop signs at 70MPH. The judge needs to be overruled.
did he get out on weekends and Holidays?
He was apparently communicating with his constituents and putting his travel expenses to do so on a govm't tab. Criminal acts are not part of the scope of his employment.
That is THE dumbest justification with legalese I have heard in a while
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.