Negligent Hiring Case Study
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Negligent Hiring Case Study
Introduction
Employers are expected to conduct due diligence and background checks on employees to ensure that they hire people who have no prior criminal records with the aim of avoiding negligent hiring. Ensuring that a candidate is an active fit for a job is an essential part of making a successful placement. The inability to conduct necessary checks and ascertain that an employee does not create a liability for the firm is critical. Negligent hiring claims arise when individuals file formal complaints about an employee for an organization for criminal violations and harm inflicted while on duty or when using their assets (Foxhire Team, 2017). The implication is that once a complaint is filed against an employer, they must reply and address the issues because they had a duty to ensure that they hire the right people based on respondeat superior. In this assignment, the essay discusses the concept of negligent hiring and its effects on employees and employers, particularly the fulfillment of the principle of respondeat superior.
Elements of Negligent Hiring
Organizations must ascertain that they hire better persons without any record of criminality as well as traffic violations. Further, employers must ensure that they carry out background checks and only offer jobs to people who will not lead their organizations to litigations. Employers can be charged for negligence in hiring charges if their hiring decisions result in an employee causing harm to any individual that they interact with when on the job. Negligence in hiring results in exorbitant financial implications, particularly costs, and can ruin the image as well as the reputation of an organization. Negligent hiring claims are formal and legal petitions made against an employer.
A claim on this basis is founded on the idea that an organization is responsible and legally accountable for any injury caused by the employee’s negligent acts or conduct (Foxhire Team, 2017). Further, an employer becomes responsible when an employee’s actions as a result of the inability of the employer to conduct useful backgrounds. In such cases, courts assess if the employer has reasonable care in the selection or retaining an employee for specific responsibilities and duties that the individual was expected to carry out. For instance, employers can avoid negligent hiring by conducting pre-employment background checks, testing employees for drug use and physical examination.
A complainant filing negligent hiring claims must ensure that certain elements exist between the employee and the employer organization. These include the existence of employee engagement and relationship, incompetence on an employee, and employer’s practical or constructive knowledge of the inability. There must also be an employer’s negligence in recruiting or retention of workers as a probable cause of the complainant’s harm. Besides, the act or omission by an employee should be the cause of the injuries sustained by a plaintiff.
Application to the Case
In the case of Superior Electrical and its worker Jones as well as their negligent liability, these elements must apply to them. According to the lawsuit, Jones’ statement that he had no driving violations was not right. His license had been suspended due to a host of traffic breaches that involved careless driving and having no license. The employer never checked these facts to verify if Jones’ assertions were true. Secondly, the accident occurred while Jones was using the employer’s vehicle, and the collision was solely due to the negligent conduct by him. Thirdly, Jones was incompetent, and the employer was negligent in their decision to hire him. The negligence of the company was the proximate cause of Carolyn and her son’s injuries. Besides, the claim by the plaintiff meets the existence of a relationship element in negligent hiring since Jones and Superior had employment engagement as he had been hired upon completion of his apprenticeship.
Superior Electrical hired Jones after completing his apprenticeship. The organization retained the defendant and promoted him to an electrician position. In addition, the vehicular accident happened while Jones was using the organization’s vehicle and within the confinements of the job description. Imperatively, Superior Electrical is responsible for negligently employing Jones without conducting background checks to verify his statements. As described in the Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc. case, firms are duty-bound to verify that hired workers are fit and with ethical conduct. Superior failed to confirm that Jones’s license had never been under suspension, or he never had traffic violations.
Respondeat Superior
Respondeat superior is a doctrine used on tort law which holds an entity, especially an organization or employer, liable for injuries caused by its employees or those acting on its behalf. The underlying concept behind the doctrine is that employers have control over the decisions as well as the actions of their employees. Additionally, employers also get benefits through the actions of their agents within the description of their employment (Brownell, 2016). Therefore, respondeat superior applies when there is an employment relationship between the employee and organization if the harm occurred and was caused while the employee was acting on behalf of the organization if the employee was within the scope of their employment (Justia, n.d). Again, the actions of the employees should provide benefits to employers.
Applying Elements to the Case
The case involving Jones and the accident that led to injuries on Carson and her son demonstrates the concept of respondeat superior. The organization or the employer is liable and should respond because Jones was an employee and was driving home as required by the company in its vehicle when the incident occurred. Secondly, the activity that Jones was engaged would offer benefits to the employer. In this case, the organization required drivers to take the firm’s vehicles to their homes once through with their daily work. Therefore, the company knew that Jones was still having its issued car while driving home. Thirdly, the collision occurred as Jones was in the company’s vehicle. Imperatively, Superior Electrical should respond since taking the vehicles home was one of the job descriptions for Jones and other such drivers in the company.
Liability
The implication is that Superior Electricals is responsible based on the concept of respondeat superior for the injuries and harm caused by Jones while in the company vehicle. As illustrated in the Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing and Heating, organizations should understand that they are criminally accountable for the actions of their agents that can cause harm to others, especially customers, colleagues and those in the general public. As indicated, Superior is a defendant in this case because it benefits from activities and actions carried out by Jones as one of its truck drivers.
Conclusion
The legal concepts of negligence in hiring and the need for a superior to respond are critical in employee engagement and hiring practices. These provisions make employers responsible for the conduct of their employees when executing activities on their behalf as long as there are relationships, and such actions stand to provide benefits to the organizations.
References
Brownell, J. (2016). Respondeat Superior and the Scope of Employment. Retrieved from
https://www.jbplegal.com/blog/2016/april/respondeat-superior-and-the-scope-of-employment/
Foxhire Team (2017). Negligent Hiring and the Importance of Doing Your Due Diligence.
Retrieved from https://www.foxhire.com/blog/what-is-negligent-hiring-how-avoid/
Justia (n.d). Vicarious Liability/Respondeat Superior. Retrieved from
https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/vicarious-liability-respondeat-superior/
Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc., 496 N.C.2d 1086 (Ill. Ct. App. 1986
Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing and Heating, 130 P.3d 1011 (Colo. 2006). Retrieved from
https://casetext.com/case/raleigh-v-performance-plumbing-and-heating-1