DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,902 Posts
The "actual damages" seemed high to me - but she wasn't my grandmother.

Some home service companies advertise the security of their technicians. One local heating and air place uses the line "technicians you can trust with your house keys". One certainly hopes that a major utility would have some measures to prevent hiring people who case customers homes for robberies.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,902 Posts
That's why Spectrum's insurance company will probably be the entity that appeals the fine.
Did you see this?
The headline itself contradicts your claim. The story also gives more detail about the crime. (The murderer went to the house in his work vehicle the day after install and killed the victim when he was discovered stealing credit cards. The company says the criminal background check "showed no arrests, convictions or other criminal behavior". "Nor did anything in Mr. Holden’s performance after he was hired suggest he was capable of the crime he committed, including more than 1,000 completed service calls with zero customer complaints about his behavior.”
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,902 Posts
The robbery may have been his first attempt or it may have been a case where he simply had not been caught. There was no mention of any previous victims (robbery) once it was discovered he was capable of crime by his performance.

("Oh yeah, he did my install and my credit card was missing and use was seen a couple of days later. I just didn't blame it on him." type of stories that should have come out.)

Reading the article, I do not believe he intended to enter the house and kill the victim. The article stated he intended to steal the cards she conveniently kept in a kitchen drawer and was caught in the act. Perhaps his previous 1000 installs didn't offer such a soft target (drawer full of credit cards).

The biggest indicator of trouble was not something that would show up on a background report. He openly talked to other people about needing money. That describes a lot of people.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,902 Posts
I doubt that they will change any business practice unless they find (internally) that they did something wrong.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,902 Posts
He was driving a company vehicle, but was NOT working for Spectrum when he entered the home to steal the credit cards (and when caught in the act) kill the homeowner. (He worked at the house the day before, not the day of the robbery turned murder.)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,902 Posts
so when any worker brakes an rule they can't just say NOT working for them at the time and get out of it.
No. In this case the employee had no work related reason to be at that house. He returned on his own time to commit a crime and his employer had no reason for him to be there. It would be like suing your employer if you decided to kill someone in a road rage incident. Sure, your employer should have seen the warning signs and had you committed or medicated before your rage reached that level - but is your employer truly responsible for your actions 24x7x365? If you punched someone in a bar would your employer be responsible (unless a superior employee was present and told you to hit someone)?

Being responsible for an employees actions while they are at work is one thing. Being responsible for that employees action's 24x7x365 is ridiculous.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,902 Posts
Your suggestion was that an employee could magically stop being an employee while on the job simply by breaking a rule. That is the stupidity I was responding to. In the bar example your suggestion is that an employee could be installing at a bar and the moment he decides to hit someone the company would claim that they were no longer responsible for the employee's presence or actions. That isn't the situation that happened in Texas.

If you are going to hold the company responsible for the employee's action the day after how about the week after? A month after? That is where the claim gets stupid again. If they had terminated the employee due to the "concerns" that the victim's lawyer claims were obvious would that have cleared the cable company of responsibility or would that have served as a trigger for the employee to attack one of the 1000 other customers he served?

What would be the company's options if they had followed the victim's lawyer's advice and terminated the employee? Report the employee to the police? (Hey, we got this guy with money problems - we are firing him - keep an eye on him, will ya?) Kill him? That would have prevented him from robbing the victim.

There has to be a boundary where the employer is no longer responsible for their employee's actions. Somehow I don't believe we will find that boundary in this thread.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,902 Posts
Hopefully that information is accurate. Lawyers often make public claims that are not fully supported by facts. The jury (who would have received statements from both sides under penalty of perjury) believed Charter was liable.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top