City of Laval responsible in shooting by ex-RCMP cop

[ulmont]

That's the case for every job.  Short of absolute malfeasance (deliberate bad acts) the employer is responsible for any mistakes.

An employee can be found liable for negligence here (no deliberate bad act) and while the employer may be liable (and so usually the employee is not pursued), the employee is also liable for their negligence.

You're saying that works differently in the Frozen North?

[Barrister]

Nah, sue away.  But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups.  Want to hold them accountable?  That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.

Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?

Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough.  Why should that be any different for police officers?

Of course police (like anyone else) should be fired if they fuck up.  That's not the issue.

The issue is that if you make a mistake in your job you suddenly aren't on the hook for the cost of that mistake.  If you screw up badly enough you'll be fired, but you don't have to make up the cost.

That's the case for every job.  Short of absolute malfeasance (deliberate bad acts) the employer is responsible for any mistakes.

Why on earth would you make policing different?  In most jobs ifyou make a mistake you might cost your employer some money.  But police will have to make decisions based on very little information that can potentially cost a lot more than that.

I was just dealing with a file where the police, at 5am in a remote community, made a decision that in retrospect that cost someone's house to burn down.  With hindsight it was a terrible decision.  But at the time, with the limited facts that officer knew?  I can see where he was coming from.

WTF are you talking about?  Where did I say that police officers should have to make up the financial cost of any errors that they make?  I agreed with Neil that suits against the police for errors in judgement is a bad thing (and later explained my reasoning--that the taxpayers generally shouldn't be liable--which might not match his, since he never explained his unless I missed it).  I  also later stated that I have no problem with people suing private security firms for in similar circumstances.  And finally I stated that police officers should be held accountable for their actions, and be subject to the same potential types of discipline that any other employee would be subject to from their employers--firing, demotion, etc.  Nowhere did I say sue the individual police officers.

See where I bolded your original statement?  That's where you said they should sue individual police officers.

[dps]

Nah, sue away.  But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups.  Want to hold them accountable?  That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.

Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?

Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough.  Why should that be any different for police officers?

Of course police (like anyone else) should be fired if they fuck up.  That's not the issue.

The issue is that if you make a mistake in your job you suddenly aren't on the hook for the cost of that mistake.  If you screw up badly enough you'll be fired, but you don't have to make up the cost.

That's the case for every job.  Short of absolute malfeasance (deliberate bad acts) the employer is responsible for any mistakes.

Why on earth would you make policing different?  In most jobs ifyou make a mistake you might cost your employer some money.  But police will have to make decisions based on very little information that can potentially cost a lot more than that.

I was just dealing with a file where the police, at 5am in a remote community, made a decision that in retrospect that cost someone's house to burn down.  With hindsight it was a terrible decision.  But at the time, with the limited facts that officer knew?  I can see where he was coming from.

WTF are you talking about?  Where did I say that police officers should have to make up the financial cost of any errors that they make?  I agreed with Neil that suits against the police for errors in judgement is a bad thing (and later explained my reasoning--that the taxpayers generally shouldn't be liable--which might not match his, since he never explained his unless I missed it).  I  also later stated that I have no problem with people suing private security firms for in similar circumstances.  And finally I stated that police officers should be held accountable for their actions, and be subject to the same potential types of discipline that any other employee would be subject to from their employers--firing, demotion, etc.  Nowhere did I say sue the individual police officers.

See where I bolded your original statement?  That's where you said they should sue individual police officers.

Uh, no.  I perhaps wasn't clear enough, but I'm saying that cops should be accountable in the same way that any employee is accountable--they can be fired or otherwise disciplined for their mistakes.

[Martinus]

Wow, dps's claim that "taxpayers shouldn't be liable" is one of the strangest things I have heard here, especially from a Westerner.

When communism ended in Poland, the change of law resulting in the fact that the state can be sued for damages resulting from negligent or illegal actions of its representatives (such as police officers or other public functionaries) was considered one of the biggest achievements of the free state based on the concept of a rule of law.

[Martinus]

Uh, no.  I perhaps wasn't clear enough, but I'm saying that cops should be accountable in the same way that any employee is accountable--they can be fired or otherwise disciplined for their mistakes.

Uhm, but employees can also be sued for damages resulting from their negligence or carelessness. This liability may be capped by statute, and usually people prefer to go after the employer due to bigger pockets, but you are mistaken if you believe that employees enjoy some sort of immunity for their actions carried out while "on duty", I think.

[viper37]

An employee can be found liable for negligence here (no deliberate bad act) and while the employer may be liable (and so usually the employee is not pursued), the employee is also liable for their negligence.

You're saying that works differently in the Frozen North?

Unless it's deliberate, no, I don't think a company can sue its employees.  In cases of gross negligence, I'll be held accountable for not providing sufficiently clear directives, or not paying for complementary classes.

Rules have changed a tad in the past few years where the foreman can now be sued for his negligence if he let people work without adequate protection (say, helmet, or tying themselves when they are working above 5') and they have an accident.

Even if the guy comes to work drunk and 'cause an accident, I will be held liable as I should have seen him and prevent him from working.  In wich case, I need to pay his minimum wage (3hrs for non unionized workers, 4hrs) for the day + the cost of a taxi/bus to bring him back home.  If he injures himself while in that state, I am liable for his injuries.

[Barrister]

Unless it's deliberate, no, I don't think a company can sue its employees.  In cases of gross negligence, I'll be held accountable for not providing sufficiently clear directives, or not paying for complementary classes.

Rules have changed a tad in the past few years where the foreman can now be sued for his negligence if he let people work without adequate protection (say, helmet, or tying themselves when they are working above 5') and they have an accident.

Even if the guy comes to work drunk and 'cause an accident, I will be held liable as I should have seen him and prevent him from working.  In wich case, I need to pay his minimum wage (3hrs for non unionized workers, 4hrs) for the day + the cost of a taxi/bus to bring him back home.  If he injures himself while in that state, I am liable for his injuries.

Workplace accidents are a bad example, as there is a specific statutory regimce (Workers Comp) that is no-fault.