I've been remiss in not updating from the latest on the criminal proceedings surrounding Professor Patrick Harran. According to the indomitable Jyllian Kemsley, it looks like the case is headed to an appeals court, based on the fact that the law might might be unclear (CJ's words) as to whether or not Professor Harran is legally responsible as a supervisor, as opposed to UCLA (the ultimate "employer"):
On Oct. 24, 2013, Harran’s attorneys filed a “petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or other appropriate relief” with the California Court of Appeal. The petition covers similar territory as the demurrer motion from last August: The defense argues that UC was the employer and Harran merely a supervisor....
So far, the Court of Appeal has not done anything with the petition. Until it does, the case cannot proceed.To get the legal language full-blast, click here. This case just keeps going and going and going.
I really hope that we aren't looking at the OJ Simpson trial of legal chemistry cases here.
ReplyDeleteNext appeal will be on the grounds that Harran didn't get a speedy trial. (This sentence is only half snark)
ReplyDeleteI actually think this is a very valid argument. It's not your boss's individual responsibility for training. The money to train you doesn't come out of his paycheck, it comes out of the company. Your boss doesn't pay for workers comp insurance, the company does. The boss doesn't pay unemployment insurance, the company does. The COMPANY is responsible for safety training. If the company tells the boss to train the person, and the boss doesn't, the company can fire the boss. Short of direct, intentional actions by the boss, it is the employer who is responsible.
ReplyDelete