Posted on 04/02/2008 9:14:52 AM PDT by Def Conservative
A Pizza Hut deliverer fired shots at an armed robber who threatened his life, wounding him and leading to the criminal’s capture by police. What kind of reward did James Spiers get for his self-defense? Unemployment:
A Des Moines pizza driver who was suspended from his job after he shot an armed robber said today he has been overwhelmed by support from people who cheered what happened.
“But no one had contacted me directly about a job offer,” said James William Spiers III, 38, who was sent home by Pizza Hut managers after he fired multiple shots at a man who put a gun to his head Thursday and demanded money …
Spiers, who has a valid handgun permit, said he’s been “pretty much in the dark” about his job since the incident. Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut’s corporate offices in Dallas, said last week that employees are not allowed to carry guns “because we believe that that is the safest for everybody.”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
No just cowards afraid of liability.
Pizza Hut: “Hey Criminals- all our delivery men are unarmed!”
Same subject posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1995134/posts?page=49
You are correct Sir -
The liability a pizza company would assume if a lawyer could point out that they encouraged their drivers to go armed would be a nightmare if the wrong person was shot by the pizza delivery guy.
The money lost in a pizza delivery robbery is completely insignificant while the money lost in a potential lawsuit is not.
This is simple business sense in a country with too many lawyers and has nothing to do with gun control IMO.
Most major papers are out of touch. I guess they would rather he died...
“Safest for everybody” - yeah, as long as “everybody” includes only the corporate dweebs who care more about the convenience of avoiding a liability lawsuit than they do about the lives of the people who work for them.
Not hard to boycott Pizza Hut. They’re always looking for loopholes in their “specials”, their pizzas are mediocre, and it takes forever for the delivery guy to come around.
Is it legal to carry a gun in Iowa?
Correct. As an agent of Pizza Hut, they can be held liable for the death and injury to criminals and innocent bystanders. Funny that Pizza Hut isn’t worried about being liable for deliverers murdered due to company policy. This kind of nonsense can be corrected by liability reform.
I’m going to call the local Pizza Hut and tell them that I’d like to order a couple of pizzas, delivered....but that I’m not going to, because I wouldn’t want to endanger the life of one of their drivers.....
Of course they have to balance that against the loss of revenue they will suffer after half their customers decide they don't want to do business with them anymore if they don't respect the lives of their employees.
I won't patronize Pizza Hut until they cease their insane policy of supplying fodder for criminals.
I think the sentiment is more against lawsuits than it is about self-defense.
Yeah. In other words, they are cowards.
Mediocre?
You're just being polite.
Perhaps. But it’s pretty disgusting either way, if you think about it.
Yup. It's just pizzas. Had it have been an cash or valuables that were being transported, the company would take measures to secure their property. It just isn't cost effective for protecting a pizza and 15 dollars in change. And a shot Pizza hut employee looks better for the company image than an employee who shoots someone. Sad but true.
I don't know why Pizza Hut is getting all this grief over this story -- especially from elected officials in Iowa. Pizza Hut is simply enforcing a company regulation that was put in place specifically to deal with legal processes over which they have no control.
Why don't we all boycott anything produced in the state of Iowa until the state legislature passes -- and the governor signs -- a law that indemnifies every business in the state against any civil liability in cases where their employees exercise their right to defend themselves?
This isn’t the first time they have done this...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38726
Sorry but Pizza Hut AND the delivery driver are both right in this case. The driver has the absolute right to defend himself, no questions. However, Pizza Hut for liability reasons must absolutely forbid drivers to carry weapons. Pizza Hut would be absolutely insane from a business point of view to take on the possible liability of a stray bullet.
The unfortunate truth is that Pizza Hut could stand to lose millions in the case of an accidental (or otherwise) shooting if it officially allowed drivers to carry.
Not being a shareholder or company officer, I agree.
That’s life.
Should you ever gain some measure of control in any company in which I might own stock, please let me know before your “bravery” costs me my money when the company is bankrupted in lawsuits.
Pizza Hut is in the right here. If you want to fix the problem, rail against the lottery system we call civil court. As long as it’s potentially liable for multi-million dollar suits if it allows drivers to carry, it has to prohibit it.
...wear a helmet...
Indeed, AVOID THE NOID.
Safer for everybody Vonnie???? Safer for the animals that hold up your drivers for certain. Safer for your drivers who are often killed during these robberies? What a friggin' idiot. The guy deserves a medal and instead he gets fired. No more Pizza Hut for my family!
“Is it legal to carry a gun in Iowa?”
What are the employment rules? If the employment rules say that a driver cannot carry a firearm, does that override the gun laws of the state?
Any business that handles cash should have weapons. Period. IMHO. When we travel in Guatemala or the Dominican Republic, there is an armed guard prominently stationed at the entrance to most businesses and financial institutions. Some of my teammates find it unnerving; I find it reassuring.
Pizza Hut would have been smart to just keep their lawyers under control and not done anythig about the incident. They shouldn’t have an explicit policy concerning whether their drivers can be armed or not. With their present policy it could be argued if a driver is killed during a robbery that Pizza Hut not only stripped their drivers of the right to self defense but has publicized this vulnerability with their present actions and statements thus opening themselves to legal recourse from the driver’s family.
It’s exactly this type of attitude of rolling over and pandering to the lawyers which has led to the mess in our courts.
They are screwed either way, these cases are becoming typical.
However, with pressure the Iowa legislature may be forced to enact a law similar to the one in Florida signed by Jeb Bush that makes it nearly impossible for the civil suits to pass a pretrial motion.
What about the lawsuit by the employee or family of employee who’s shot and was told not to defend himself? The risk of an employee who would otherwise carry getting hurt is much greater than the very slight risk of the example you give. Can you give me an example of any incident where someone with a CHL defended themselves and shot someone else?
Additionally, the issues you bring up can be handled easily. First, there’s this thing called insurance. Second, PH or any place can require certain restrictions on carrying — say, limited to those with a valid CHL or even additional training. Third, the company can require both an indemnity agreement and proof of liability insurance by the employee carrying.
I am a lawyer who’s managed a pizza place AND been held up, so I think I can speak to all of these issues. I’ve had a gun pointed at me and have been told to get on the ground. That was the one and only time in my life that I will face that, as I will always fight back.
If your job takes you into areas where you should carry a handgun, then do it or change jobs. When I was working for living I carried when and where I felt it was necessary for my security.
I didn’t ask the State or the City for a permit, nor did I ask my boss for his permission, nor did I inform my wife which would have resulted in her worrying more than necessary.
Yes, once I made it known to some thugs who were looking at me as prime pickings that I was armed by allowing my vest to swing open which changed their opinion of me in a heartbeat. I didn’t have to shoot anyone or even remove it from the holster.
If you are an honest person going about your legal activities in a normal fashion the local police don’t take much notice of you. They aren’t inclined to ask permission to pat you down if you have a tool box beside you or a tool in your hands. They don’t bother the lady with a handgun in her purse and a grocery bag in her hands who is walking out to her car. They don’t fuss with the women who are carrying concealed without a permit in the park who are watching their children play on the swings.
If you signed on to a job and the employment rules prohibit the use of a gun, they can and should fire you...
Pizza Hut is liable for negligent delivery drivers too but they don't expect their delivery guys to hoof it. Don't be stupid. Pizza Hut has liability insurance. This is about a cowardly company caving in to political correctness.
Near impossible to win since you cannot prove that having a firearm would have actually changed the outcome. Having a firearm would merely increase the probability in favor of the victim which isn't the same thing.
You realize we're talking about minimum wage guys here who can't get real jobs? We're harldy talking about the bondable.
You are clueless. Good night.
>> Near impossible to win since you cannot prove that having a firearm would have actually changed the outcome.<<
The hell I can’t. Its called expert witness, for one. Direct testimony for another. You’d be amazed at what I and others have been able to “prove” in court. Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean it can’t be proven.
>>Having a firearm would merely increase the probability in favor of the victim which isn’t the same thing.<<
Actually, it IS the same thing, and all it boils down to is a fact issue for a jury to decide. Do a search on “comparative negligence” and you’ll see that nothing has to be absolute.
>>You realize we’re talking about minimum wage guys here who can’t get real jobs? We’re harldy talking about the bondable. <<
Who said anything about being bondable? An indemnity agreement is a simple contract that doesn’t necessarily require surety. Have you ever rented anything? You signed an indemnity clause of sorts. They likely didn’t require you to post a bond.
Contract law itself doesn’t require the proof of financial responsibility to pay damages.
Perhaps you're right perhaps not. I don't claim to possesess your legal expertise, but recent conversations with lawyers have led me to believe that a simple indemnity clause while sufficient for renting power tools isn't going to cut muster for armed employees. I now have at least two more sources who've passed the bar who contend that if you can't bond packing employees, you're in over your head.
>>a simple indemnity clause while sufficient for renting power tools isn’t going to cut muster for armed employees. I now have at least two more sources who’ve passed the bar who contend that if you can’t bond packing employees, you’re in over your head.<<
The indemnity clause is sufficient to keep the company from any legal liability. Trust me, I’ve litigated this on very similar issues.
Now, I will grant you that various states have different negligence standards. I’ve been amazed at cases that actually made it to juries that would get thrown out (and laughed out) where I practice. However, think about your original point: the stray bullet injures someone and the company is sued. What is the theory of liability in that case? How can the employer be held responsible for decisions of the employee that aren’t made in the course and scope of his or her employment? If you are required to work overtime one night and, while driving home you have a wreck because you are tired, is your employer at fault? Of course not, but that’s analogous to what you are suggesting here.
The fact is that employers don’t have a duty to protect individuals from the actions of their employees when not engaged in their job duties. You might argue that preventing a robbery is one of their job duties, but even if it is, shooting (at) someone isn’t. Further, you would have to show a proximate cause between your stated duty — that of the employer either encouraging handgun carry or not discouraging it — and the injury of the innocent person. That would be very difficult. Finally, all Pizza Hut would have to show in their defense in such a matter would be that some employees aren’t armed, thus 1) to carry and 2) to shoot is ENTIRELY the decision of the employee, and Pizza Hut isn’t engaged in the business of shooting people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.