Johnson v. Weinberg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that laundromat employee acted within the scope of employment when shooting a customer during dispute over clothes
• holding that a reasonable juror could find that a laundromat employee’s assault on a customer during a dispute concerning missing shirts was foreseeable
• holding that a reasonable jury could conclude that laundromat employee’s shooting of a complaining customer “arose out of and was related to” the shooter’s “employment”
• concluding that a reasonable jury could find that a laundromat employee acted within the scope of his employment when he shot a customer during a dispute over missing shirts
• noting that “[i]f a patron was unable to locate his or her laundry, once having deposited it, it seems likely that [the employee] would be confronted in an effort to resolve the matter”
• finding that a jury could find a laundromat employee’s shooting of a customer foreseeable because “the assault arose out of the transaction which initially brought [the customer] to the premises and Was triggered by a dispute over the conduct of the employer’s business.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).