根本唔應該租客賠
管理處自己唔熄水制
無撚錯
唔call消防判頭又唔call租客
最後on9到浸埋
又唔升𨋢
(求助）今日睇清唒人係可以賤到咩地步 year 2中大生陳詠儀與其母親 2
連真名都剋扣
459 回覆
672 Like
25 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁
又唔升𨋢
CASES:
In Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. GatzkeI, the employee, A.J. Gatzke, was staying in a motel in Duluth while he helped the Walgreen Company open a new restaurant. 277 N.W.2d at 13. One evening, after several hours discussing the new restaurant over drinks at a Duluth bar, Gatzke returned to his motel room and smoked a cigarette while he finished filling out some expense reports. Id. at 14. His cigarette butt later started a fire in the motel room’s waste basket and caused over $300,000 in damage to the motel. Id. The motel sued Gatzke for the damage and alleged that the Walgreen Company was vicariously liable.
The Gatzke court first concluded that it could not dismiss the possibility that Walgreen was vicariously liable simply because the damage was caused by smoking, an activity that was not required as part of Gatzke’s job. The court explained, “an employee does not abandon his employment as a matter of law while temporarily acting for his personal comfort when such activities involve only slight deviations from work that are reasonable under the circumstances, such as eating, drinking, or smoking.” Id. at 16. Thus, “an employer can be held vicariously liable for his employee’s negligent smoking of a cigarette [if] he was otherwise acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the negligent act.” Id.
Compare that with a similar case, Mosby v. McGee. McGee was smoking after the conference events were over for the day, at a time when he was not doing anything traceable to his work responsibilities, in a place that had no formal connection to his employment. In those circumstances, the Court found no evidence sufficient to persuade a reasonable juror that McGee’s actions on the night of the smoking caused fire were “in furtherance of the interests of his employer.”
https://jux.law/when-is-an-employer-liable-for-the-action-of-its-employee/
In Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. GatzkeI, the employee, A.J. Gatzke, was staying in a motel in Duluth while he helped the Walgreen Company open a new restaurant. 277 N.W.2d at 13. One evening, after several hours discussing the new restaurant over drinks at a Duluth bar, Gatzke returned to his motel room and smoked a cigarette while he finished filling out some expense reports. Id. at 14. His cigarette butt later started a fire in the motel room’s waste basket and caused over $300,000 in damage to the motel. Id. The motel sued Gatzke for the damage and alleged that the Walgreen Company was vicariously liable.
The Gatzke court first concluded that it could not dismiss the possibility that Walgreen was vicariously liable simply because the damage was caused by smoking, an activity that was not required as part of Gatzke’s job. The court explained, “an employee does not abandon his employment as a matter of law while temporarily acting for his personal comfort when such activities involve only slight deviations from work that are reasonable under the circumstances, such as eating, drinking, or smoking.” Id. at 16. Thus, “an employer can be held vicariously liable for his employee’s negligent smoking of a cigarette [if] he was otherwise acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the negligent act.” Id.
Compare that with a similar case, Mosby v. McGee. McGee was smoking after the conference events were over for the day, at a time when he was not doing anything traceable to his work responsibilities, in a place that had no formal connection to his employment. In those circumstances, the Court found no evidence sufficient to persuade a reasonable juror that McGee’s actions on the night of the smoking caused fire were “in furtherance of the interests of his employer.”
https://jux.law/when-is-an-employer-liable-for-the-action-of-its-employee/
根本唔應該租客賠
管理處自己唔熄水制
無撚錯
唔call消防判頭又唔call租客
最後on9到浸埋
又唔升𨋢
係
應該管理署賠最大份, 八九成走唔甩
認真樓主冇證據憑咩係到嘈
根本唔應該租客賠
管理處自己唔熄水制
無撚錯
唔call消防判頭又唔call租客
最後on9到浸埋
又唔升𨋢
係
應該管理署賠最大份, 八九成走唔甩
咪係
太長唔睇推左先
根本唔應該租客賠
管理處自己唔熄水制
無撚錯
唔call消防判頭又唔call租客
最後on9到浸埋
又唔升𨋢
係
應該管理署賠最大份, 八九成走唔甩
咪係
Hold個管理員/保安公司 liable啦
樓主再咁落去想幫你都幫唔到
我開咗file設計街招架啦
唔好嘥我心機
貼街招 搵樓主上水啦
錄音呀 你老母臭系
根本唔應該租客賠
管理處自己唔熄水制
無撚錯
唔call消防判頭又唔call租客
最後on9到浸埋
又唔升𨋢
係
應該管理署賠最大份, 八九成走唔甩
咪係
浸機底壞哂最多都係幾皮
我諗住係法律途徑解決呢件事 所以唔打算公開證據
我諗住係法律途徑解決呢件事 所以唔打算公開證據
洗乜搞咁多,叫管理處揹晒佢咪得
明顯係管理處問題
我諗住係法律途徑解決呢件事 所以唔打算公開證據
算吧啦你 睇死你都冇證據架喇
告條撚就有你份
我諗住係法律途徑解決呢件事 所以唔打算公開證據
洗乜搞咁多,叫管理處揹晒佢咪得
明顯係管理處問題
On撚99
管理處凌晨冇人關水制 搞到水浸
係員工問題(係咪真係員工做成都未知)
而唔係管理處同業主問題
我諗住係法律途徑解決呢件事 所以唔打算公開證據
洗乜搞咁多,叫管理處揹晒佢咪得
明顯係管理處問題
On撚99
管理處凌晨冇人關水制 搞到水浸
係員工問題(係咪真係員工做成都未知)
而唔係管理處同業主問題
管理處凌晨冇人關水制搞到水浸咪就係成件事最大既問題
管理處有責任揹依d野,管理處唔可以長期冇人應對
如果唔係炒車既話
你咪報警話支那臭雞放火
管理處自己疏忽你屌返佢轉頭都得啦
你咪報警話支那臭雞放火
管理處自己疏忽你屌返佢轉頭都得啦
我諗住係法律途徑解決呢件事 所以唔打算公開證據
算吧啦你 睇死你都冇證據架喇
告條撚就有你份
如果我冇證據 我去搵律師做咩 我阿媽已經搵到佢阿媽認左係佢做之後講對唔住好內疚段錄音 我就諗住用呢段錄音再加各位連登仔嘅意見去同律師傾
多謝大家幫手
希望嗰10萬最後佢可以出黎賠返
你老母係咪已經簽左野話同意揹10萬?
唔係既話仲有得拗邊個賠
唔係既話仲有得拗邊個賠
炒車了
邊橦商業大廈又唔講，邊間管理公司又唔講，邊間𨋢公司又唔講！等我地幫你問下收你老母錢嘅公司係咩來頭ma!點發動網絡力量去幫你呀！
話唔定果幾間公司自己負翻責任呢
只係爆人地兩母女資料！叫人地俾10萬你老母
你係唔係吹個故仔出嚟勒索呀
話唔定果幾間公司自己負翻責任呢
只係爆人地兩母女資料！叫人地俾10萬你老母
你係唔係吹個故仔出嚟勒索呀
炒車了
車都未見邊忽炒，過埋今晚至知
我諗住係法律途徑解決呢件事 所以唔打算公開證據
好撚嘢 撚完人潛水2日
然後話自己遁法序途徑解決問題
學樓上話齋，咩大廈咩管理公司講得啦掛？
依家凈係見到你得個講字屈人10皮
嗱我講嘅全部都係真