Workplace Woes: Liability in the Case of Allergic Reactions and Food Tampering
janimonow posted: " A viral incident involving an employee who suffered an allergic reaction after consuming a coworker's food without permission has sparked a discussion about liability in the workplace. Attorney Anna Jaycelle Sacramento shed light on the matter during t" THE MANILA JOURNALRead on blog or Reader
A viral incident involving an employee who suffered an allergic reaction after consuming a coworker's food without permission has sparked a discussion about liability in the workplace. Attorney Anna Jaycelle Sacramento shed light on the matter during the "Dapat Alam Mo!" segment.
The attorney clarified that the person who took the food without consent (referred to colloquially as 'the thief') holds the responsibility. "Of course, it's the thief's fault. In the first place, the food wasn't theirs to take. How could the one who prepared the food know that the thief had an allergy?" Sacramento explained. She emphasized that since the food was taken without permission and the individual fell ill as a result, the liability falls solely on the person who took the food, not the owner of the meal.
In a hypothetical scenario where an employee intentionally adds a small amount of poison to their food to catch or harm a food thief, the liability still rests on the thief. "Because they still took something that wasn't theirs... Whatever happens to them as a result is their responsibility," Sacramento stated.
However, the situation becomes more complex if there's an intention to harm or kill. "That's a more serious matter. We have what's called mitigating circumstances... You have liability, but it could reduce your liability," Sacramento noted, implying that while the person adding the poison might be liable, the extent of their liability could be lessened under certain conditions.
Additionally, Sacramento touched upon cases where an employee publicly accuses someone of stealing their food on social media. In such instances, the law examines the accuser's intent. If the intent is to defame, the accuser could potentially face charges of online libel. "The truth can be a defense. But if there's malicious intent, that's where the problems start," she concluded.
This discussion highlights the intricacies of liability in workplace incidents, emphasizing the importance of personal responsibility and the potential legal ramifications of actions taken in response to such situations.
No comments:
Post a Comment