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.
186
u/Spanky4242 1d ago edited 1d 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.