# Would I be wrong asking for them to pay?



## snowplower1

My sidewalk crew somehow destroyed our airens path pro. It's only a 500 dollar machine but they managed to bend the housing which bent many other things inside. Warranty may or may not cover it. Not sure how much the damage will cost yet but sounds like a couple hundred at least

So I'm asking you guys what do you do if equipment is damaged from misuse. Both say they can't recall running it into acting. Mind you it is about a month old...


----------



## BRL1

Do it. I make all of my employees sign their employment contract that says they will be responsible for neglect, misuse or damage of equipment. After we enforced this we noticed employees taking care of equipment a lot better.


----------



## JMHConstruction

I've never had an issue, but a guy I used to build for charged us for damages due to stupidity (as he called it). Guy destroyed a dump trailer door, numerous tools (throwing saws down bending tables, using nail guys as hammers, dropping lumber on them), throwing ladders around and breaking fiberglass, and a guy kicked in the side of our trailer. Our boss just got pissed one day and started doing it. I don't blame him.


----------



## White_Gold11

I guess it would depend on your areas labor force.. In North Dakota we cannot find workers. The good employees we have are "nice" to equipment and trucks. The temporary winter help generally hammers on stuff. If we made them pay they would just walk. Pray that someday times will change!


----------



## snowplower1

well I'm in new york and i'll bet im not allowed to aha NY SUCKS! these guys are friends of mine from highschool. I believe they damaged it, I also believe they did not do it by abusing it. I have a feeling they just bumped into something on accident and didnt think anything of it... there's also the chance the blower just did not hold up due to a bad build on that blower. IDK I just wish it didn't happen Its frustrating


----------



## JB1

You go charging them for damages and I think you are opening up a whole another can of trouble.


----------



## Dogplow Dodge

No.

*Respondeat Superior
[Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.

The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.

An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.

In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee's job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act, the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.*

You could try bluffing them, but you're on the hook for what they do, most of the time, as long as they were doing their jobs. Now, if you had a guy who was working for you, and he decided to rape and kill someone, he's no longer performing his job, so you wouldn't be held liable for it.

Here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/respondeat+superior


----------



## BRL1

Dogplow Dodge said:


> No.
> 
> *Respondeat Superior
> [Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.
> 
> The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.
> 
> An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.
> 
> In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee's job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act, the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.*
> 
> You could try bluffing them, but you're on the hook for what they do, most of the time, as long as they were doing their jobs. Now, if you had a guy who was working for you, and he decided to rape and kill someone, he's no longer performing his job, so you wouldn't be held liable for it.
> 
> Here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/respondeat+superior


Interesting. 
Our lawer told us that as long as the employees agree to this that it is legal to do


----------



## Dogplow Dodge

BRL1 said:


> Interesting.
> Our lawer told us that as long as the employees agree to this that it is legal to do


*Another exerpt: 
An employer is liable for harm done by the employee within the scope of employment, whether the act was accidental or reckless. The employer is even responsible for intentional wrongs if they are committed, at least in part, on the employer's behalf. For example, a bill collector who commits Assault and Battery to extract an overdue payment subjects the employer to legal liability.

Where the employer is someone who legally owes a duty of special care and protection, such as a common carrier (airplane, bus, passenger train), motel owner, or a hospital, the employer is usually liable to the customer or patient even if the employee acts for purely personal reasons. The theory underlying such liability is that employers should not hire dangerous people and expose the public to a risk while the employee is under the employer's supervision.

The employer may also be liable for her own actions, such as in hiring a diagnosed psychopath to be an armed guard. An employer, therefore, can be liable for her own carelessness and as a principal whose employee is an agent.

These rules do not allow the employee to evade responsibility for harm she has caused. Injured parties generally sue both the employee and employer, but because the employee usually is unable to afford to pay the amount of damages awarded in a lawsuit, the employer is the party who is more likely to pay.*

It's like anything else. If you "agree" or make concessions to the conditions for employment, then the employer may be able to enforce you to pay for damages you cause. If there is no formal agreement, then the law applies, as far as I know.

I'm sure it varies from state to state with regards to employment laws, but back when I learned about this rule, it applied everywhere.

When I worked for Merrill Lynch, they handed me a form, and one dollar. Anything I did, made, improved upon, or whatever was OWNED by Merrill. If I didn't like it, and didn't agree to it, the door was right behind me.


----------



## On a Call

This reminds me of another situation....

Say you are in a fine china store and you knock over a display breaking $ 2000.00 worth of bone china. Should you be held to pay for it ???

The law says NO, the store may say different. But the bottom line that is part of doing business. I used to charge my guys for being distructive. Now I just fire them or just put up with it.


----------



## On a Call

Last time...two employees were backing in a truck. The driver took off a mirror on door opening even after I had told him to watch out. He was just not watching IMO. So I purchased another and charged him half. 

Where I get upset is when guys will unload snow blowers by dropping them off the trucks. Wheels bent, housing broken, handles snapped...etc. Is it their fault...you bet. This is where I fire them.

Had a 5 month old employee washing down our plow trucks. I happened to walk up watching him intentionally blowing decals off a truck. I walked up and asked why...I was just washing. I guess you cannot fix stupid. This guy was fired that was 1.5 years ago. Last storm he called a crew leader asking if he could have his job back. When I was told I shook my head.


----------



## viniferaguru

yeah- good luck with that... I wouldn't mess with anyone's paycheck; unless you have a solid lawyer on retainer and your brother-in-law works at the department of labor. It's called the price of doing business- it sucks; but people will never take care of company equipment "like it was their own" - gotta figure it in with depreciation & R&M equipment - some people have no finesse with equipment or machinery - pro tip: don't hire 'em


----------



## Philbilly2

viniferaguru said:


> yeah- good luck with that... I wouldn't mess with anyone's paycheck; unless you have a solid lawyer on retainer and your brother-in-law works at the department of labor. It's called the price of doing business- it sucks; but people will never take care of company equipment "like it was their own" - gotta figure it in with depreciation & R&M equipment - some people have no finesse with equipment or machinery - pro tip: don't hire 'em


Summed it up right there ^^^^Thumbs Up

You can't do it if you have "real" payroll. DOL is not somthing you want to mess with.

If it bothers you enough, you need to give them the choice to pay for it out of their pocket or you will have to terminate them. It has to be their decision to pay for it.

Just wait till it is something bigger than a blower. As said above, pay for it, tell them how much it was, and let them know what you intend to do if it happen again. Chalk it up as a learning experience.


----------



## snowplower1

Phil
I'm with ya there. These two guys again are good friends and both have worked for me on and off for years. Neither has ever neglected the equipment. They do a fantastic job. I have been discussing the situation with one of them who is the one I tell is responsible for my sidewalks since I depend on them. We've been trying to figure what happened and he said he can't fit the life of him think of what he could have done and he's trying to figure it out because he doesn't want to pay for something he doesn't know he did. So i said well I'm not implying anyone is paying for anything yet. I never want to. I said you know me I'm not gonna screw anyone. He said yeah I get it but it also wouldn't be fair for you to have to pay paying for this. 
We ended it with saying well let's just hope the warranty covers it (not looking to Good) 

I mean he's a real good guy for sure. I'm gonna let this one play out, we'll find it if warranty is gonna cover it cause heck maybe they really didn't abuse it and the dang thing was just a piece of crap.

I will most likely explain to everyone after this that they need to be held responsible for equipment. 

Btw though my first year of plowing i managed to shatter the back window in my truck and I secretly just paid for it because I felt wrong making the company pay 250 dollars when they were completely innocent. This was before I ran the company so I wasn't in this position now


----------



## Randall Ave

Well on how it happened, there adults, just man up and say what happened to it. But on the other hand unfortunately it's the price of being in business, you can't legally make them pay for it unless you had some type of contract with it specifically outlined. It's just the fact, they don't own it, they don't care as much. And re think the hiring friends, it's the best way to kill a friendship


----------



## On a Call

Sell it as new on here. 

do a bait and switch


----------



## Dirtebiker

If you saw or know they were negligent, charge them or fire them. If it was an accident, make sure it doesn't happen again.
**** happens!


----------



## viniferaguru

it's probably worth mentioning the most important component here - which is your help. I set standards and communicate what/how I want things done..but- A staff person who is dependable and will work all hours of the day and night is worth 100 snow machines... People are hungry - but not so much that they will work for a tyrant or someone being unreasonable. That said.. I've had plenty of dummies come down the line - best to get rid of them ASAP


----------



## On a Call

viniferaguru said:


> it's probably worth mentioning the most important component here - which is your help. I set standards and communicate what/how I want things done..but- A staff person who is dependable and will work all hours of the day and night is worth 100 snow machines... People are hungry - but not so much that they will work for a tyrant or someone being unreasonable. That said.. I've had plenty of dummies come down the line - best to get rid of them ASAP


Are you calling me a tyrant ??


----------



## PLOWMAN45

another reason why i def wont let anyone use my truck


----------



## leolkfrm

hand them shovels, snowplow and dominators,


----------



## Snow tracker

I pay my shoveling guys by the job, $18 for that walk, $10 for this one and prorate for larger storms. This way they can take as much time as they want or get it done fast and make more money. They are told that if they do not do a clean job they go back and fix it on there own. They can use my blowers but if they break one then they hand shovel until it gets fixed. If I feel it was neglect then it usually takes the repair shop a little longer. An average guy can make $20 an hour, a good guy can make $35 and hour.


----------

