At least that’s the headline of this AP wire story. Summarizing the situation:
- Guy drives a dump truck for the city
- He accidentally backed the city’s dump truck into his personal auto
- He sues for damages from the city
- The city responds by pointing out that he’s essentially suing himself, since he’s at fault
It sounds silly, even idiotic, but at the core is a very interesting question. An employer is generally liable for acts performed by employees in the course of their employment. With that argument, the city is probably liable for the damages.
One could wonder if there’s an inherent exception in this situation…and under what circumstances that exception applies. (E.g., imagine a cop accidentally shooting his/her spouse while trying to apprehend a criminal. Or what if this driver had been hauling toxic or nuclear waste…?)
If it gets much media play, this could have the potential for being sort of like the McDonalds coffee suit — at the surface, it seems silly that a fast food restaurant would be liable for a customer spilling hot coffee on the surface, but when you get into the details, and see that the franchise had been warned repeatedly that their coffee was dangerously hot, and hotter than was required to maintain a quality product….