The state of the law on arbitration is undeniably titled against consumers, workers, and really anyone who is wronged by a corporation (including, sometimes, even smaller corporations). We've discussed on this site for years how arbitration undermines disputants' rights and favors the big repeat players. And we've discussed how far arbitration has extended under recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. (I won't inundate you with links.)
Even in light of all this, a recent case from Missouri still has the power to shock: an arbitration agreement in a refrigerator-rental contract was held to cover an elderly customer's lawsuit against an employee of the rental company for a home invasion and savage beating. Read more here from our friend Paul Bland.
Is this really at all relevant or worthy of discussion? I mean, the suspect has been charged in a court of law. So what if he used the uniform from his former job as a way to get in the door for the assault? I’m thinking that you folks at PC have better things to do…
Best regards,
Peter
Bear with me, I’m struggling to work this out …
So, an ex-RAC employee commits a violent crime for which said ex-RAC employee is now criminally charged. That part seems clear enough.
What seems less clear to me is why RAC’s arbitration clause in its rental agreement has anything to do with this crime. Is the victim suing RAC for hiring a thug? Does the arbitration clause of the rental agreement prohibit the victim from civilly suing either the (ex)employee or employer for damages? Iow, is an arbitration clause basically the go-to way for any biz to shield itself from civil lawsuits? Even when criminal charges are involved?
Make no mistake, I’m on the side of the victim here, assuming I must pick a side. But really, based on the info in this post and its links, I’m not at all clear what you think RAC’s culpability is.