In common law, a tort is a civil wrong that results in an unfair loss, injury or harm to someone due to negligence by a person who commits the act (Harpwood, 2000). Therefore, the plaintiff, also the injured party, can sue and get compensated for the damages in a lawsuit. However, the plaintiff must dispense the burden of proof of liability whether through acts of omission, commission or both. This paper demonstrates negligent hiring by Superior Electrical (Superior) in a case involving Curtis Jones, an employee of the organization, who caused an accident which resulted in severe injury of Carolyn Carson and her son.
Hiring negligence is a conduct below standards established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of loss or harm (Mitchell, 2015). An act of negligence occurs when one acts below set standards and which a reasonable person cannot act under the given circumstances. The first element is establishing duty of care – this involves establishing whether the employer is owed duty of care to an employee. Duty of care is established by a legal relationship between the employer and the employee for instance through a signed employment contract. For example, it is the responsibility of employers to ensure that employees adhere to the set employment contract. Breach of duty is another element used in lawsuits to establish negligence. For instance, it is the duty of employers to conduct due diligence before hiring to avoid hiring improper employees (Harpwood, 2000). A breach of duty happens when the employer knows the requirements of hiring new employees but does not follow them to the letter. Further the employer knows that the actions of neglecting duty could cause injury, harm or loss and that had the employer followed the hiring procedures, he would liability for any acts by employees. Causation is an element used to establish whether the harm or loss by the plaintiff was caused by the defendant’s breach of duty. For example, an employer who hires unqualified driver who ends up causing an accident killing or injuring motorists or pedestrians is liable for hiring negligence. The death of injury or motorists or pedestrians in this case is caused by an employer who hired an unqualified driver. Damages is the last element of negligence where the defendant is required to compensate the plaintiff for injury or loss suffered (Harpwood, 2000). Damages can be monetary, medical care or reinstatement to former condition. In case of an unqualified driver who causes an accident that injures pedestrians or motorists, the employer is required to pay for damages in form of medical care.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
“Tort of negligent hiring states that any person doing any activity through employees is subject to liability for harm resulting from negligent conduct in hiring of improper person instrumentalities in work involving risk of harm to others” (Connes v. Molalla Transport Systems, Inc., 1991). Superior Electrical is liable for negligent hiring since no due diligence was conducted to establish whether Cory Jones had a valid driving licence. No driving records were obtained before Jones was hired. Measured against the risk of hiring a reckless Jones, Superior ought to have conducted due diligence to establish the validity of Jones driving licence. By so doing, Superior should have established that Jones’s driving licence had been suspended due to numerous traffic offences and careless driving. Superior’s breach of this duty resulted in severe injuries to Carolyn Carson and her son and therefore this negligence can be cited as the cause of the accident. Further, Superior should pay for damages in lieu of the severe injuries caused to Carolyn and son.
A plaintiff trying to hold an employer vicariously liable for the actions of an employee must satisfy three conditions. The plaintiff must prove that the individual was an employee during the time the injury or loss happened. This can be proven through a payroll, employment contract and records obtained from the employer that establish a formal relationship (Connes v. Molalla Transport Systems, Inc., 1991). Secondly, the plaintiff must show that the offender was acting with the confines of job description at the time an accident occurred. Actions outside the scope of employment and causing accident may indemnify the employer of any liability. Thirdly, the plaintiff must prove that the actions of the employee were benefiting the employer directly (Mitchell, 2015). Cory Jones was an employee hired by Superior, first hired as an apprentice electrician and later promoted into an electrician. Jones was then assigned a company vehicle equipped with a rack for transporting wiring and other materials to and from the work sites. It was during this period that Jones caused accident that severely injured Carolyn and son. As such, based on the first tenet of respondent superior, Superior Electrical is vicariously liable for the actions of Jones. Superior had granted Jones the permission of taking the vehicle home after the end of the day’s work when the accident happened on his way home. Therefore, Jones’ actions were within the confines of his work as the employer was fully aware and had granted permission. Under the second clause of respondent superior, Superior is liable since the employee was within his responsibilities. As to whether the actions of Jones were benefiting Superior Electrical during the time of the accident, the answer is yes. Superior Electrical allows employees to take vehicles home after concluding the day’s work. Jones was merely following the directions, which are deemed to benefit the employer, when the accident happened. As such, Superior Electrical is vicariously liable for the severe injuries on Carolyn and her son. In a lawsuit, Superior Electrical would be required to pay for damages as all the requirements of proving negligent hiring and respondent superior are satisfied.
Conclusion
In any lawsuit involving negligent tort liability, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff satisfying the conditions of negligent hiring and requirements for respondent superior. If all conditions are satisfied, the employer is held fully liable for the actions of their employee and is required to pay damages for the harm, loss or injury caused. In the case of Superior Electricals and Carolyn Carson and her son, Superior is liable for the actions of Jones as all the conditions are satisfies and hence enough proof of negligent tort liability. On the grounds of respondent superior and negligent hiring, Superior Electrical is liable.
References
Harpwood, V. (2000). Principles of tort law . Cavendish publishing limited.
Mitchell, P. (2015). A History of Tort Law 1900–1950 . Cambridge University Press.
Malorney v. B & L Motor Freight, Inc.,, 496 N.E.2d 1086 (Appellate Court of Illinois July 18, 1986).
Connes v. Molalla Transport Systems, Inc., 817 P.2d 567 (Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. 4. September 23, 1991)
