iPhone stolen

Going4TheDream

halibut2209 wrote: »

I would still pursue the supermarket. I don't believe he is a "third party"

And my money is on ASDA.

I agree - he may be a 3rd party now he doesn't work for them but at the time of the crime he was an employee and was acting as a representative of their company, irrespective of what his role was.

Valli

vax2002 wrote: »

Disagree, he broke policy and at that point he was STILL employed.
I would fire off a notice before action letter claim to the supermarket followed up by a County Court Claim if they ignore.
If you could just exonerate your employees from blame and liability by claiming they broke contract there would be no need for any health and safety guidelines or public liability insurance as you could just retrospectively claim that they broke contract and you have sacked them, Example sorry the forklift truck driver ran over your Gran, but he was in breech of his contract so hard luck.
He was employed, they will have policy upon his actions, he broke that policy, they sacked him for doing so.
I think that makes them liable for the actions of the employee in causing you loss whilst in the employment of the supermarket.

Not the same thing at all. Forklift truck driver is employed to drive a forklift truck. If he has an accident while so doing the victim could sue the driver but would have better chance of compensation if he sued the employer. So the employer is vicariously liable for the actions of his employee as long as the employee was carrying out his contracted duties.

THIS supermarket employee was NOT carrying out contracted duties so the employer isn't liable. He was acting of his own volition. He MUST have know he was commiting a criminal act, in this case theft. If he had been doing what he was employed to do he would have logged the i phone in the relevant book and stored it in a safe place.

So (unfortunately) the supermarket cannot be held liable for a criminal act of an employee even if it was on their premises and during working hours.

I actually believe that the supermarket concerned here could show goodwill and refund/compensate the OP but they are quite within their rights to refuse to do so. They know they are not liable and are not accepting liability.

Valli

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I agree - he may be a 3rd party now he doesn't work for them but at the time of the crime he was an employee and was acting as a representative of their company, irrespective of what his role was.

No he wasn't REPRESENTING the company he was an EMPLOYEE of the company.

vax2002

Nope, not having that, lets agree to disagree, he was acting in the course of his employment dealing with lost property.
I would go straight at them for the loss of property caused by the employee, if the supermarket feel they were not responsible then let them counter claim from this "third party" who they just happened to be employing at the time.

Valli

Well it's the law. Whether or not you choose to accept it!

Just been a reported case of a policeman abusing a child (cannot remember the exact details). The police force is not liable for his actions even though he was employed by them.

vax2002

Valli wrote: »

Well it's the law. Whether or not you choose to accept it!

Just been a reported case of a policemen abusing a child (cannot remember the exact details). The police force is not liable for his actions even though he was employed by them.

I think you may mean legislation...

Markee

Valli wrote: »

Not the same thing at all. Forklift truck driver is employed to drive a forklift truck. If he has an accident while so doing the victim could sue the driver but would have better chance of compensation if he sued the employer. So the employer is vicariously liable for the actions of his employee as long as the employee was carrying out his contracted duties.

THIS supermarket employee was NOT carrying out contracted duties so the employer isn't liable. He was acting of his own volition. He MUST have know he was commiting a criminal act, in this case theft. If he had been doing what he was employed to do he would have logged the i phone in the relevant book and stored it in a safe place.

So (unfortunately) the supermarket cannot be held liable for a criminal act of an employee even if it was on their premises and during working hours.

I actually believe that the supermarket concerned here could show goodwill and refund/compensate the OP but they are quite within their rights to refuse to do so. They know they are not liable and are not accepting liability.

Thank you for this, as much as I hate this it makes total sense.

So in thoery of the law, the instant you commit a criminal act whilst on duty at work you become individually responsible for your actions and the employer is no longer responsible for your actions because it is you who have knowingly committed a criminal act.

Like the police officer who was personally tried for assault (or manslaughter or whatever it was) of the guy at the G20 protests who later died?

Valli

Markee wrote: »

Thank you for this, as much as I hate this it makes total sense.

So in thoery of the law, the instant you commit a criminal act whilst on duty at work you become individually responsible for your actions and the employer is no longer responsible for your actions because it is you who have knowingly committed a criminal act.

Like the police officer who was personally tried for assault (or manslaughter or whatever it was) of the guy at the G20 protests who later died?

More or less.... if your employer instructs you to commit the act he is responsible for the outcome.

This might help -

'Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope of employment').[1] 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 sometimes distinguish between an employee's "detour" or "frolic". For instance, 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.'

In this case the employee, in retaining the phone, was acting in his own right. So a court would find him guilty, not the supermarket.

But I would find it annoying too, OP.

pinkshoes

I would chase the supermarket AND the employee. If they include theft as gross misconduct, then surely they are liable??

My guess is Tesco on Cowley Rd?

Going4TheDream

Valli wrote: »

No he wasn't REPRESENTING the company he was an EMPLOYEE of the company.

Point taken I did not mean representative as being able to speak on behalf of the company more that as he was seen as the face of the company by the member of the public who gave him the phone , and thereby representing them.