3 ms·

I was equally surprised and dismayed when I learnt of this initially, but it is already established as a point of law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario

by teyc 15y ago

I was equally surprised and dismayed when I learnt of this initially, but it is already established as a point of law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability So in the case of the luxury cruise ship sinking, or Exxon Valdez, the ship owner is responsible the cost of cleanup.

res0nat0r 15y ago
"Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope of employment')" So the contract company, the actual employer of these people should be responsible from the sounds of it, not Google.
- teyc 15y ago
  On the surface of it yes. However, there are cases where people who work as contractors are viewed as employees by the law. Here's the reason why: these people work on Google's premises; Google probably dictates what time they have to show up for work; and generally tells them how to perform that work. I don't have the names of the legal cases where the precedents were set off the top of my head, but under those circumstances, the court has ruled that vicarious liability continues to apply.
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    I worked onsite for a large pharmaceutical company in their corporate HQ for 6 years, but never was considered any employee of that company. I couldn't access many services and perks of that company even though I was in their datacenter and on site every day for years. This was the point of hiring me via my consulting company was to move the liability, cost and responsibility to a 3rd party, which also seems to be the case here. This can be a good or bad thing depending on the situation. The original company can show it is cheaper to use a contracting company, but also as seen in the Gulf oil spill, there can be a lot of finger pointing between companies on who is responsible for damage where when it comes time to deal with real problems.
    - teyc 15y ago
      In your case, any mistakes you make is unlikely to affect a third party. But should a third party be involved, they'll try to pin the blame on the pharma, not you, the pharma has the cash. In which case, they'll be arguing to the judge that the way you work makes you more like an employee than a contractor, even though you don't enjoy the benefits of being an employee.
steve8918 15y ago
In the second paragraph of the first section: "whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability." A Google contractor adding false information to OpenStreetMap is undertaking a "frolic", unless that was specifically his job at Google. If Google specifically told him to do it, then yes Google should be held liable, however, if the contractor is killing time and being an asshole while twiddling his thumbs, Google will not be held liable.
- teyc 15y ago
  Oh yes, you are right. I had forgotten about "frolic". I wonder how this point will pan out with the case of Costa Concordia.

by teyc 15y ago

res0nat0r 15y ago

"Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope of employment')" So the contract company, the actual employer of these people should be responsible from the sounds of it, not Google.

teyc 15y ago
On the surface of it yes. However, there are cases where people who work as contractors are viewed as employees by the law. Here's the reason why: these people work on Google's premises; Google probably dictates what time they have to show up for work; and generally tells them how to perform that work. I don't have the names of the legal cases where the precedents were set off the top of my head, but under those circumstances, the court has ruled that vicarious liability continues to apply.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  I worked onsite for a large pharmaceutical company in their corporate HQ for 6 years, but never was considered any employee of that company. I couldn't access many services and perks of that company even though I was in their datacenter and on site every day for years. This was the point of hiring me via my consulting company was to move the liability, cost and responsibility to a 3rd party, which also seems to be the case here. This can be a good or bad thing depending on the situation. The original company can show it is cheaper to use a contracting company, but also as seen in the Gulf oil spill, there can be a lot of finger pointing between companies on who is responsible for damage where when it comes time to deal with real problems.
  - teyc 15y ago
    In your case, any mistakes you make is unlikely to affect a third party. But should a third party be involved, they'll try to pin the blame on the pharma, not you, the pharma has the cash. In which case, they'll be arguing to the judge that the way you work makes you more like an employee than a contractor, even though you don't enjoy the benefits of being an employee.

steve8918 15y ago

In the second paragraph of the first section: "whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability." A Google contractor adding false information to OpenStreetMap is undertaking a "frolic", unless that was specifically his job at Google. If Google specifically told him to do it, then yes Google should be held liable, however, if the contractor is killing time and being an asshole while twiddling his thumbs, Google will not be held liable.

teyc 15y ago
Oh yes, you are right. I had forgotten about "frolic". I wonder how this point will pan out with the case of Costa Concordia.