With all due respect, sir, there was nothing strange about the holding in the Davila case. The facts of the case may not be routine - in the law, we might call them sui generis - but the concept of vicarious liability on the part of the fleet owner, Yellow Cab, for the conduct of it's alleged agent, servant and employee, Williams, is relatively straightforward and easy to understand.
The issue is one that turns on the measure of control Yellow exercised over it's driver (a "lessee"), and the court said it was not for a judge to decide it, but rather for the Jury. Because reasonable minds could conclude that Williams was under the control of Yellow at the time he did his deeds, summary judgment in favor of Yellow Cab was inappropriate.
Reading the whole case only helps to some extent. The concept of agency relationships is one you can only understand by reading a wide range of cases, many of which are cited in the body of the Davila opinion. After doing so, you would never say the holding is strange or complex.
Donald Nathan
Mr. Nathan,
I never said that the 'Davila holding' was 'strange or complex'. The alleged conduct of BOTH Williams and Davila could be viewed as outside their normal scope of 'employments'. The allegations are indeed, strange complexities. This would never be a definitive case of determining 'vicarious liability' on anybody's part.
'Davila' does nothing to promote the idea that Yellow Cab 'employed' Williams. I also doubt that any jury would reach that conclusion, especially considering the unusual circumstances in the case.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
With all due respect, sir, there was nothing strange about the holding in the Davila case. The facts of the case may not be routine - in the law, we might call them sui generis - but the concept of vicarious liability on the part of the fleet owner, Yellow Cab, for the conduct of it's alleged agent, servant and employee, Williams, is relatively straightforward and easy to understand.
The issue is one that turns on the measure of control Yellow exercised over it's driver (a "lessee"), and the court said it was not for a judge to decide it, but rather for the Jury. Because reasonable minds could conclude that Williams was under the control of Yellow at the time he did his deeds, summary judgment in favor of Yellow Cab was inappropriate.
Reading the whole case only helps to some extent. The concept of agency relationships is one you can only understand by reading a wide range of cases, many of which are cited in the body of the Davila opinion. After doing so, you would never say the holding is strange or complex.
Donald Nathan
Mr. Foulks:
Read the title of your posting to which I had responded. It simply says what it says. When you say black is black, I suppose you can say it's white later. Who cares? The bottom line is that the three Justices who considered the case in the 1st District Appellate Court decided that reasonable minds could differ about whether there was an agancy relationship (i.e. employer-employee) between Yellow Cab and Thomas Williams.
That YOU disagree with the Justices is all well and good. You, sir, have at least 10 years of street knoowledge. But you have no training in agency law and no scope of the principles that underlie the decision reached in the Davila matter whatever. So although your analysis has a basis and is respected by those who have that training, it is not persuasive or dispositive of the issue.
One way or another, the case is not so unusual. It is not an abberation.
It is suggested that you do some reading of the cases cited in Davila - and then to read the cases cited in those cases. When you are done doing that, try running down the cases that cite Davila and the progeny of those cases. When you have a command over all of those cases, you can speak with some authority and deserve to be respected. Licensure as a lawyer isn't needed to understand the law.
It is also suggested that you read the cases I cited in my other posting of last night about employer-employee relations as they pertain to Illinois Workers Compensation. When you have some fluency in the concept and parlance beyond your good common sense and street wisdom, your opinions are more likely to be in line with Illinois court decisions.
I've been dabbling in the area for a long time and continue to learn. I'm happy to take a couple of lessons from you too.
Don Nathan
Mr. Nathan,
I was aware of the Davila case long before it became an issue here on Cabarket.com. I have read other cases about 'workmens compensation' with regards to cabdrivers and without. I do not pretend to be a lawyer, nor an expert in this area. I know what I know.
I don't need to 'read the title of (my) posting'!!!!! I'm the one who posted it, SCHMUCK! It says that the Davila case was strange, which you *******ized into suggesting that I claimed the 'holding' or 'conclusion' or 'ruling' was strange. Black is black, and white is white, and you are guilty of either subtly misattributing something to me or you are just plain dumb. Which is it?
When and where and how did I 'disagree with the Justices'??? You again reveal either your carelessness or your intent on misattributing an opinion to me which I do not hold. Why do you continue to do this, Mr. Nathan?
So we must all complete 'Mr. Nathan's suggested reading list' in order to participate in a respectable discussion? I didn't have any need to cite anything in those other cases to justify the substance of my reply.
We get it Mr. Nathan...YOU'RE the LAWYER and WE'RE the CABDRIVERS (or mopes, or whatever derogatory term you let slip which shows your unbelievable superiority complex).
Please keep your backhanded compliments and show me 'where (my) opinions are (out of) line with Illinois court decisions'.
It is clear to me that you have a weak mind and that you make flawed arguments by using deceipt rather than adhering to the truth. Why do you delude, self-delude, and allow others to remain deluded?
You don't want any lesson I could 'teach' you, Mr. Nathan.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Foulks:
Read the title of your posting to which I had responded. It simply says what it says. When you say black is black, I suppose you can say it's white later. Who cares? The bottom line is that the three Justices who considered the case in the 1st District Appellate Court decided that reasonable minds could differ about whether there was an agancy relationship (i.e. employer-employee) between Yellow Cab and Thomas Williams.
That YOU disagree with the Justices is all well and good. You, sir, have at least 10 years of street knoowledge. But you have no training in agency law and no scope of the principles that underlie the decision reached in the Davila matter whatever. So although your analysis has a basis and is respected by those who have that training, it is not persuasive or dispositive of the issue.
One way or another, the case is not so unusual. It is not an abberation.
It is suggested that you do some reading of the cases cited in Davila - and then to read the cases cited in those cases. When you are done doing that, try running down the cases that cite Davila and the progeny of those cases. When you have a command over all of those cases, you can speak with some authority and deserve to be respected. Licensure as a lawyer isn't needed to understand the law.
It is also suggested that you read the cases I cited in my other posting of last night about employer-employee relations as they pertain to Illinois Workers Compensation. When you have some fluency in the concept and parlance beyond your good common sense and street wisdom, your opinions are more likely to be in line with Illinois court decisions.
I've been dabbling in the area for a long time and continue to learn. I'm happy to take a couple of lessons from you too.
Don Nathan
Mr. Foulks:
Rest assured, I have never been guilty of "...misattributing..." anything to you. At no point did I suggest you had "...[disagreed] with the Justices..." in Davila v. Yellow Cab in any material respect. That court opinion just stands for the principle that cabdrivers are typically employees and driver Williams was just closer to the edge of what it is to be defined as an employee in the fact setting of the case. To the extent you feel that Cabdrivers are independent contractors rather than employees, I suggest it works against the interest of the cabdrivers when faced with potential liabilities.
And you sure don't have to read squat to have opinions. I don't care if you ever read anything, Mr. Foulks. You can harbor your opinions without reading cases. The only reason to give you citations was to give you the opportunity to do so - as well as others who have interest enough to do so. Certainly you needn't have any rational basis for ANY opinion you express as far as I am concerned. I observe that there are times you seem to have no rational basis for your opinions whether you read or you don't.
in fact, you exhibit symptoms of serious pathology of some sort - it's way beyond my ken. I have no training in psychiatry beyond lay experience. Your venom goes way beyond personal animus; it rises to a level that I see as demented. I see no reason to respond to any further comments from you. From here on in, you are fighting with yourself, not me. You are not a mope. You're what I see as a lunatic - a bright one. So go flail at somebody else.
You can go teach yourself lessons, Mr. Foulks. There is a fringe in every society. You can go appeal to yours. We don't need you for that.
Don Nathan
Mr. Nathan,
You have consistently misattributed opinions to me which I do not hold, either based on your careless reading of my postings, your presumption that I must hold incorrect opinions due to the difficult subject matters at hand, your paranoid delusion you share with Mr. Weiss and Mr. Tang (and with others, I'm sure) that some kind of conspiracy exists between Mr. Lutfallah and myself (necessitating some undocumented commonness in our opinions) or a combination of the three!
You suggest that I harbor opinions without reading cases. I have read many cases in my lifetime, Mr. Nathan. I am quite familiar with the law libraries scattered around the world. One of my God-given talents is the ability to speed-read and retain a high level of information and understanding.
Please quit making statements like 'I observe that there are times you seem to have no rational basis for your opinions whether you read or you don't' without ACTUALLY SPECIFYING WHICH 'OPINION' YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT if you can't stomach my most appropriate insult as a reply.
You are no 'wise man'. You don't have any credibility to bank on here. I don't trust you and I don't believe that many others do either.
Your return to the mental health arena actually reflects a mental weakness on your part, Mr. Nathan. (Don't listen to Mike...he's 'crazy'! How many times does that work in a court of law?)
I appeal to more than the 'fringe', Mr. Nathan. Or must you use your tortured logic to describe the hundreds of associates who I personally know to stand by and respect me even when we might disagree on the details as fellow 'lunatics'? Or are they just 'mopes'?
Here's some friendly advice...stay out of our business. You're not a part of it any more. We have a serious need to organize ourselves. 'WE DON'T NEED YOU FOR THAT'.
It seems to me that you have some strange interest here. Before you diagnose me as being paranoid, could you do us all a favor and just explain EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR INTEREST HERE, MR. NATHAN? Will we die before we get a straight answer?
Do us a better favor and stay in California. I haven't really got a pressing need to read anything you've done in the last 40 years.
I haven't judged you on your knowledge of or experience in the law. I have judged you on your actions and inactions. I'm not going anywhere, Mr. Nathan, so I hope your 'bye-bye' means that you are, finally, leaving.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Foulks:
Rest assured, I have never been guilty of "...misattributing..." anything to you. At no point did I suggest you had "...[disagreed] with the Justices..." in Davila v. Yellow Cab in any material respect. That court opinion just stands for the principle that cabdrivers are typically employees and driver Williams was just closer to the edge of what it is to be defined as an employee in the fact setting of the case. To the extent you feel that Cabdrivers are independent contractors rather than employees, I suggest it works against the interest of the cabdrivers when faced with potential liabilities.
And you sure don't have to read squat to have opinions. I don't care if you ever read anything, Mr. Foulks. You can harbor your opinions without reading cases. The only reason to give you citations was to give you the opportunity to do so - as well as others who have interest enough to do so. Certainly you needn't have any rational basis for ANY opinion you express as far as I am concerned. I observe that there are times you seem to have no rational basis for your opinions whether you read or you don't.
in fact, you exhibit symptoms of serious pathology of some sort - it's way beyond my ken. I have no training in psychiatry beyond lay experience. Your venom goes way beyond personal animus; it rises to a level that I see as demented. I see no reason to respond to any further comments from you. From here on in, you are fighting with yourself, not me. You are not a mope. You're what I see as a lunatic - a bright one. So go flail at somebody else.
You can go teach yourself lessons, Mr. Foulks. There is a fringe in every society. You can go appeal to yours. We don't need you for that.
Don Nathan
