@Butrflynet,
The origin of online photos can be traced. I don't think that would work.
The guy's got no case as far as I can tell unless he wants to try to sue God for making him an idiot.
@edgarblythe,
anonymous is easy enough, if that's what your goal is, ed.
If you go into a store, in the course of shopping end up in an argument with an employee there, and he ends up punching you in the face, is it just the store's employee who is liable?
We all know the jury will put the owner on the hook as well.
I don't see how this is any different. If the employee acts badly to a customer while on duty and there is real damage, the owner has to bear responsibility.
In a franchise situation, whether the responsibility goes all the way up to corporate headquarters in a city far away, or stops at the franchise owner of that particular store, I cannot say. But the notion that the store owner escapes responsibility by saying, "Hey that punch was just something that happened between my employee and the customer-I'm not involved at all" is not going to work.
If it can be verified that the store employee retrieved the phone, the store is responsible. Not sure about corporate headquarters, but the store for sure.
@Blickers,
A smart attorney will name everybody--the employee who guaranteed the phone was secure, the manager, the franchise owner, the franchise, and anybody else who might have any kind of involvement in the situation.
And no attorney will take the case without believing there's a case there.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:A smart attorney will name everybody--the employee who guaranteed the phone was secure, the manager, the franchise owner, the franchise, and anybody else who might have any kind of involvement in the situation.
And no attorney will take the case without believing there's a case there.
It may very well be legal malpractice to
not name everyone.
Still no pics posted here? What the hell! This thread sucks!
