University:
Indiana University Bloomington
Course:
Financial and Managerial Accounting: Information for Decisions - John J. Wild
Academic year:

2024
Views:

281

Pages:

2
Author:

bratrochanter

Summary of Cases and Legal Principles in Negligent Hiring, Duty of Care, and Wrongful Death: Negligent Hiring and Employer Liability (Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing) 1. Duty in Hiring: The employer’s duty to investigate an employee’s background varies by the level of public interaction and the nature of the job. The court highlights that negligent hiring is not intended to hold employers liable for all actions by their employees but rather for risks they could have reasonably anticipated. o Restatement (Second) of Agency: Employers are liable if they had reason to foresee a risk of harm from hiring a particular employee. o Foreseeability and Duty Scope: A duty of care in hiring depends on the extent of contact an employee has with the public as part of job duties. Performance Plumbing was not held liable because Weese’s commute was considered a private activity, outside the scope of his job responsibilities. 2. Off-Duty Incidents: Courts are hesitant to extend employer liability to accidents occurring during employees' commutes, as this could unreasonably expand employers’ obligations. The court ruled that since the Raleighs did not encounter Weese through his work duties, Performance Plumbing had no duty to them in this context. Negligence, Duty of Care, and Wrongful Death (Currie v. Chevron) 1. Wrongful Death and Duty of Care: In a tragic case, Currie alleged that Chevron employee Shukla negligently enabled Antoine’s attacker, Muhammad, to access gasoline without a vehicle, despite warning signs and a customer’s plea to call the police. o Chevron’s Liability under Respondeat Superior: The principle held that Chevron could be liable if Shukla’s negligence occurred within her employment duties, specifically in controlling access to gasoline. 2. Court’s Consideration of Foreseeability: A jury found Chevron partly liable, concluding Shukla should have foreseen the risk by authorizing the pump despite signs of a violent altercation. The court reduced damages by 25% due to Antoine’s own contributory negligence under comparative negligence principles. Key Legal Takeaways: • Foreseeability is critical in establishing an employer’s duty of care. Courts assess whether an employer could reasonably anticipate harm based on an employee’s role. • • Employer Responsibility in Hiring: While employers must exercise reasonable care in hiring, especially for jobs with public interaction, they are not liable for all employee actions outside work scope. Comparative Negligence: Liability and damages in negligence cases can be adjusted based on each party’s contribution to the incident, as seen in Currie v. Chevron where damages were reduced due to shared fault. The two cases demonstrate the nuanced application of duty and foreseeability in determining liability for employer-employee actions, especially when public safety is involved.