Ross v. Johnson

Ross v. Johnson: Court Rules on Employer Liability for Employee Violence

This case involved a customer who was assaulted by a bartender and then sued multiple parties, including TMD Investments and Ginger Sherrill, claiming they should be held responsible for the bartender's actions. The customer argued these defendants were liable because they had some connection to employing or supervising the bartender.

The court ruled against the customer and dismissed the claims against TMD Investments and Ginger Sherrill. The judges found there was no legal basis to hold these defendants responsible for what the bartender did. The court determined that the relationship between these defendants and the bartender was not sufficient to make them liable for the employee's violent behavior toward the customer.

What this means for workers: This ruling highlights the complex rules around when employers can be held responsible for their employees' actions. While employers are typically liable for things their workers do within the scope of their job duties, courts examine the specific employment relationship carefully. Workers should understand that liability questions depend heavily on the exact nature of the employment arrangement and whether the employee was acting within their job responsibilities when an incident occurred.