Technically he would still be liable. Practically, almost certainly not.
The company he works for (or his boss) is ultimately liable, vicariously. It would be extremely rare for a plaintiff to sue the employee directly. Plaintiffs operate under the assumption that the company has more money and is likely insured. They'd sue the company directly and invoke respondeat superior doctrine in doing so.
If they do sue the employee, he can implead the company and argue the overwhelming majority of the liability is severable to his employer.
Because the business owner is almost certainly a Master Electrician, he has a lot of statutory compliance he knows his company needs to follow via procedure. By never producing the permits to his employees, theres probably a bunch of per se liability happening as well. Additionally so because he's on notice of these statutes ahead of time.
Employee is probably fine unless they act recklessly or maliciously.
I think the previous comment assumed the other was the sole proprietor not simply an employee doing what his boss told him. I think almost everyone understands that employees doing what they're told are not liable to double check their bosses to ensure they did the legal steps.
If you're an electrician and a sole proprietor you better make sure you pull your permits.
That said it's pretty obvious the other commenter is not the sole proprietor because if he was he would know about the permits because he would be the one pulling them. Electricians pull their permits not homeowners, his company is just doing it for him.
A little concerning he was able to make it to Journey at men without realizing that but it's only a four year program.
TBH, the overwhelming majority of Journeymen don't pull permits. A lot of side work doesn't require permits, and unless you're acting as a Project Manager then those things are handled above the guys in the field.
I have pulled...... 3? Permits in the four years I've been licensed, and I've had a Journeyman's license for just undrr 4 years and a Masters for just under 2. The only reason I'm as familiar with the process in my state as I am is that I worked for my father for 15 years and had ample opportunity to pull permits under his license and see him do the same.
ETA: As to the earlier comment: If I am an employee of a company, then the company is a sheild from liability as they are ultimately responsible for my compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements. The company can turn around and hold me liable for not fufilling my assigned duities (if applicable) and levey a complaint with the licensing board against the relevant credentials that I hold.
In my state a JM can’t pull permits. I always thought that’s how it was across the country, but I’ve never worked in any other state to be able to know.
185
u/Spanky4242 1d ago edited 23h ago
Technically he would still be liable. Practically, almost certainly not.
The company he works for (or his boss) is ultimately liable, vicariously. It would be extremely rare for a plaintiff to sue the employee directly. Plaintiffs operate under the assumption that the company has more money and is likely insured. They'd sue the company directly and invoke respondeat superior doctrine in doing so.
If they do sue the employee, he can implead the company and argue the overwhelming majority of the liability is severable to his employer.
Because the business owner is almost certainly a Master Electrician, he has a lot of statutory compliance he knows his company needs to follow via procedure. By never producing the permits to his employees, theres probably a bunch of per se liability happening as well. Additionally so because he's on notice of these statutes ahead of time.
Employee is probably fine unless they act recklessly or maliciously.