Quote:
Originally Posted by supercalif
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You might be the cutest! So let's get the cards on the table for this one...
A member of AG accidentally trained wToV without consent of leadership, who also went against the suggestions of said leadership and it somehow is the fault of an entire guild by association? Let's look at what was offered pulling in the direct text from the petition response:
- AG offered to recover Kittens; it was declined.
- AG conceded LTK; it was declined.
- AG invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
- Freedom invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
- AG offered another LTK concession for a total of 2 LTK concessions now; it was declined.
- Freedom and AG conceded the next LTK, Telk, Gozz; It was declined.
Accidents happen based on poor decision making but let's not say there was no accountability, that would be inaccurate. As I read the petitions I didn't get a sense of KWSM making specific arguments at the time of infraction on how clear things up.
Could this have been handled differently, for sure but let's not take things to the extreme here. |
Under the common law theory of respondeat superior, whether or not the liability for the actions of an employee or agent can be imputed to the employer or principal rests on whether or not the employee/agent was acting within the scope of their duties in that role. as a result, whether or not liability for Incubo's train can be imputed to AG / F rests on the answer to the question: was what he did done within the scope of his activity as a member of their raid? Since he was moving from ToV, where they had been raiding, to DN, where they were also intending to raid - the answer is yes, that was within the scope of his role as a raider. He was moving from one raid location, to another raid location, to continue raiding. Accordingly, AG / F should have been considered liable for that train notwithstanding directing Incubo not to do it.
If you get injured by someone's employee, it's not defense for the employer to say "we told him not to do that," if the thing the employee did was within the scope of their employment. Example: employee driving a delivery van hits your car because they were driving recklessly. The employer is liable for the damages, even though they probably told their drivers "don't drive recklessly."
Additional point here is that the petition did not ask for Incubo to be suspended - GM's made that call on their own. In any event, when the main point of the defense offered to that petition was "we told him not to do it, it's all Incubo's fault individually," how can they then turn around and act shocked that the GM's agreed that it was all Incubo's fault, individually? Your leadership threw him under the bus. That's on them, not anyone else.