Court Rules Company Not Liable for Employee’s E-mail Threats

December 18, 2006

  • December 18, 2006 at 7:52 am
    Michael, UC Davis Law School says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Lynne,
    I think what you meant to say is that the trial court in Delfino and Day vs. Moore awarded them over $1M.

    I do agree with you that Agilent Technologies cant\’t be too happy to hear that their case is going to the Supremes even if the odds of review are not high. You can bet that no billion dollar company needs this kind of publicity even if they ultimately prevail in the end. Agilent should have settled this litigation for a reasonable amount when it first began even if they thought they were right. There\’s no mileage in playing this kind of game.

  • December 18, 2006 at 2:00 am
    Jerry P. Sutheridge says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    An Agilent Technologies employee uses the company\’s email system to threaten people and the company is not liable for the severe emotional harm those people are made to suffer!?

    Well, as a big business employer this may be a good ruling but as a family man with children I think it is terribly unfair and from that point of view I think that Agilent Technologies should be punished for allowing one of its employees to break the law and cause innocent people to suffer.

    Thank the Lord I do not live in California!

  • December 18, 2006 at 2:10 am
    Wes says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What about the rights of innocent companies, Jerry? No state in the nation holds an employer responsible for actions of employees who are not in the course and scope of their employment.
    Thank the Lord you\’re not on the Court of Appeals.

  • December 18, 2006 at 2:18 am
    Alan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Delfino\’s & Ms. Day\’s complaint should be against Mr. Moore. The company did not appear to do anything wrong. From a business stand point they should have moved to limit Mr. Moore\’s actions as it could create negative views of the company, but they should not be liable for Mr. Moore\’s actions.

    Alan. (Yes I live in California)

  • December 18, 2006 at 4:16 am
    KLS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Moore is the only person responsible for the actions of Mr. Moore.

    I think the plaintiffs named the company as a defendant because presumably the company has deeper pockets than the individual. Just my humble opinion.

  • December 18, 2006 at 4:37 am
    KLR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Jerry, you may not like big companies, but the legal system got it right in this case. If someone takes a letter opener off their desk at work, and kills someone with it on their lunch hour, you should not hold the company liable, deep pockets or not. This case is a perfect example of two things I can\’t stand, no personal resonsibility, and petty, frivolous lawsuits.

  • December 18, 2006 at 4:48 am
    Lynne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I read the opinion and for one thing, a trial court awarded Day and Delfino $1,100,103.94 for their intentional infliction of severe emotional distress claim so they did pretty well if you ask me. As for Agilent Technologies from what I have read in several newspaper articles now, Day and Delfino are appealing this ruling to the Calif Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court if necessary and I think their chances for review are pretty good.

  • December 19, 2006 at 8:45 am
    Bulldogg says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thank you Michael, spoken like a true blood sucking, ambulance chasing leach, I mean lawyer. I get the two confused because they both latch on at that first sight of blood…

    That\’s what the attornies wanted, a quick settlement from the company, equal to \”hush money\”, pay us off and it all goes away.

    GOD bless Agilent for standing up for what\’s right and fighting off the blood suckers and the \”sue everyone\” crowd…

  • December 19, 2006 at 10:13 am
    ernie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have to agree w//Bulldogg. In the long run, offering settlements in frivilous or groundless lawsuits just encourages more lawsuits.
    I\’m sure if it was an employee of this plaintiff\’s attorney, he\’d be denying any liability.

  • December 19, 2006 at 10:46 am
    Mjolnir says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In the thread discussing Wal~Marts settlement it has become clear that because WM settled the assumption is that they were guilty. I too believe that Agilent made the right choice, and I think they will be fine on appeal. Someone they employed used their system to commit a crime. That doesn\’t make Agilent resonsible, and so they shouldn\’t have to pay money to make it go away. I understand that the legal defense is costing them money, but at least no one will just assume they are guilty of something because they settled.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*