Contact me at markploftus@aol.com

Bear with me if you are just checking out this site. I am in the midst of trying to figure out how to make changes to the template...and it's a tad more complicated then I thought - I have certain limitations when it comes to technology. Anyway, we'll get it figured out in the near future.

Saw a couple of interesting cases handed down by the Illinois Appellate Court. First, in Maras v. Milestone, the Second Appellate District came down with a thoughtful opinion dealing with vicarious liability, i.e. an employer's liability for the acts of an agent. In Maras, the plaintiff filed suit againts the operator of a home where her daughter lived. Plaintiff alleged that the employer was responsible for the batteries committed upon her daughter by employees of the home. It was alleged that certain employees had repeatedly struck the plaintiff. The defense moved to dismiss, arguing that th employer can't be held liable when the employee isn't acting in the scope of him employment. The trial court dismissed and the plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Court wisely noted that a trial court shouldn't decide the "scope of employment" unless it was so obvious the no reasonable person could ever conclude the worker was acting within the scope. The Court went on to note that under some facts the employer can be liable even if the conduct was unauthorized or forbidden. An employer can be liable for the negligent, wilful, malicious, even criminal acts, if(and this is a big if)the acts were committed in the course of employment and in furtherance of the business of the employer. It appears that in this case[although not entirely clear from the record]the child[who was disabled]was injured when workers were attempting to bathe her. The Court correctly concluded that certainly physical force might be occasionally necessary for the workers in question to bathe a disabled, combative child. As a result, the Court further ruled that sadly, appropriate force might become abusive when a tired, frustrated aide is battling a disabled, uncooperative kid. As a result, the lower court's ruling was reversed.

Upon further reflection, that is enough boring legalese for one night. Tomorrow my post will include some comments about a recent case that in effect, makes it impossible to sue a fire/police department for not properly responding to a fire emergency.