The money ... or the gun?

http://news.com.au/0,3546,840881%255E1242,00.html

Edited

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The Australian
22/6/2000
Boss made to pay $800,000 award for robbery at work

A SYDNEY employer was yesterday forced to pay an employee $800,000 in damages after a judge ruled the business failed to prevent an armed
holdup in which the worker was terrorised.

Employers fear a dangerous precedent has been set for workplaces across the country after Sandra Armour sued her former real-estate agent boss for not taking measures to protect the Five Dock agency from robbery.

Ms Armour sued G and E Natoli United Realty, claiming it should have taken steps to reduce the risk of robbery by ensuring no one was left alone in the office, installing a time delay safe and displaying signs saying no cash was left on the premises.

In a judgment handed down yesterday that employers say could force up WorkCover premiums, NSW District Court judge Anthony Puckeridge found that the Five Dock realtor had breached its duty of care by failing to
provide the measures under the circumstances.

"I find that the defendant was in breach of the duty of care which it owed to the plaintiff in failing to provide a safe place of work," Judge Puckeridge found. Ms Armour, 50, was working alone at the office on June
9, 1994, when a man in a leather jacket entered, produced a shotgun and demanded money. She told the court that the man forced the barrel of the gun into her mouth and threatened to shoot her if she did not give him money.[/quote]

Might have to go and see my boss and tell him it'd be cheaper if he gave all staff a weapon of their choice ... NOW!!

(Well, it's worth a try ;))

B
 
Silly me, thinking it might have been the criminal's fault and all...

------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
"The money or the gun"?

I'm thinking, I'm thinking.....

Just a thought, but the company didn't make it illegal to be armed, thus forcing the employee to be a defenseless victim. ISTM that if the company is liable, then the government should be sued, too.

Anybody else see a lack of consistency here?

Steve
 
Back
Top