Woman Slashed (By Employee) At Gainesville Wal-Mart

One local teen went to a store to go shopping and ended up taking a trip to the hospital after a fight with an employee.

Gainesville Police say the 17-year-old teenage girl was visiting the Wal-Mart on Northwest 13th Street.

She had walked out of the store, but went back when she thought she left her cell phone in a shopping cart.

Detectives say she approached 18-year-old Wal-Mart employee Darius stacy, who was retreving the carts, and asked if he had the phone.

The two started arguing, and then shoving each other before Stacy pulled out a weapon.

"The employee had a box cutter and he cut the 17 year old in the throat," said GPD Sgt. Keith Kameg. "Fortunately, they were non life threatening injures."

The young woman was treated at Shands U-F for a cut that extended from her left ear to her windpipe.

You may not think that walmart is liable for the actions of this one punk, but the fact of the matter is that he was an employee on the clock and on walmarts premises. Its called vicarious liability u can look it up if u like, it means that the employer is responsible for any actions of its employees, so yea shes gonna definitely make some money from this whole thing.

[You may not think that walmart is liable for the actions of this one punk, but the fact of the matter is that he was an employee on the clock and on walmarts premises. Its called vicarious liability u can look it up if u like, it means that the employer is responsible for any actions of its employees...]

Okay, I looked it up. WalMart is NOT responsible for this one punk's actions. From Wikipedia: {{{Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. For an act to be considered within the course of employment it must either be authorised or be so connected with an authorised act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it. Courts sometime distinguish between an employee's "detour" or "frolic:" an employer will be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability. Neither, generally, will an employer be held liable for assault or battery committed by employees, unless the use of force was part of their employment (e.g. police officers, nightclub bouncers), or they were in a field likely to create friction with persons they encountered (e.g. car re-possessors).}}}

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.