Negligent Tort Liability

Maranda Green

BUS 624

Professor William Muniak

August 30, 2021

Negligent Tort Liability

Introduction

Negligent tort liability is a critical part of the Corporate and Business Law curriculum

that is very challenging for many students. However, students can easily understand this area

by first defining the terms “tort” and “negligence”. In this context, a tort refers to an act that

contributes to harm or injury in the hand of others and leads to a civil wrong for which law

court impose liability. Conversely, negligence involves a legal theory that a claimant brings

pursuing to hold a company liable for the injury or damages they suffered in the hands of

their workers. The essay will focus on the case study of Superior Electrical (Superior). It

will address the legal elements of negligent hiring and respondeat superior recovery theories.

Additionally, it will demonstrate how Superior is liable for these theories.

Negligent Hiring

Negligence refers to a legal theory that the individual injured or the claimant brings

pursuing to hold a company liable for the injury or damages they suffered in the hands of

their workers. There are four critical legal elements of negligent hiring the claimant must

prove to confirm that the individual supposedly at fault or the defendant acted negligently to

help them win a negligence case. The first element is that the employer or company owes the

plaintiff a legal duty of care under various circumstances. Some scholars suggest that all

businesses have a responsibility to perform reasonable investigation when hiring workers to

guarantee that they do not employ people who might pose an injury or damage threat to

others (FindLaw's team, 2019). In the case study, Cory Jones (the defendant), an electrician

at Superior owed Carson’s (the plaintiff) a legal duty of care to act with cautious care. The

defendant was supposed to drive the company vehicle safely and with a specific degree of

due care.
NEGLIGENT TORT LIABILITY 3

The second element is the breach of the duty of care. This element implies that the

hiring person or the company did not effectively investigate the job applicant before hiring

the individual. The law court will look to determine if the person supposedly at fault

breached the duty of care under various circumstances. The court would find the defendant

negligent if they knew at the time that their actions could have caused injuries to someone

(FindLaw's team, 2019). In the case study, Superior breached the duty of care because it did

not conduct a criminal background check of Cory Jones. Had Superior performed an

adequate criminal records investigation it could have discovered that Jones had a record of

traffic violations, including careless driving and driving without a license (Malorney v. B&L

Motor Freight, Inc, 1986). Hence, the court could determine that Superior acted negligently

and this negligence is the cause of the severe injuries that Carson and her son suffered.

Another critical legal element of negligent hiring is causation. This element requires

that the claimant prove that the defendant’s negligence leads to their injury or harm. The

court can find the defendant’s negligence as the cause of the injury the plaintiff suffered in

presence of a chain from the worker’s behavior to the injury that illustrates that the injury

could be avoided in absence of the worker (Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc, 1986). In

the case study, the court can determine that Superior failing to discover Jones’s traffic

violations led to them hiring Jones which put him in a position to collide with two cars,

causing severe injuries to Carson and her son. If Superior had conducted an adequate

background check it would have not hired Jones and let the other events follow. Hence, the

court can satisfy that Superior’s negligence leads to the severe injuries the Carson’s suffered.

The last legal element is the damages or injury the plaintiff suffered. This element

requires the law court to compensate the individual injured for their injury (FindLaw's team,

2019). For instance, the court should compensate the Carson’s for the severe injuries they
NEGLIGENT TORT LIABILITY 4

suffered due to Jones’s negligence. The court can use monetary compensation for their

expenses like medical care and vehicle repair.

All employers or businesses have a responsibility to perform reasonable investigations

when hiring workers. This action guarantees that they do not employ people who might pose

an injury or damage threat to others. In this case, Superior did not perform a sufficient check

on Jones’s driving record, risking the negligent hiring liability for severe injuries caused by

Jones to Carson and her son. Hence, Superior would be liable for negligent hiring.

Respondeat Superior

Respondeat superior refers to a legal theory that when a worker acts in the scope of

their employment, the hiring person or the company is directly held responsible for the

worker’s behaviors. Corporate liability under this theory should consider three legal

elements to hold a hiring person directly liable for their employee’s actions. The first

element is that person was a worker at the time of the injury. Research shows that the court

can prove that the individual was a worker when the injury happened through records

obtained from the company or employer or their payroll data (The Law Dictionary, 2017). In

the case study, the court can hold Superior responsible for Jones’s actions by proving that he

was an employee of superior when the collision occurred.

The other legal element of this theory is that the worker was acting within the scope

of the employer or company when the accident happened. It can be difficult for the injured

individual to obtain evidence of the fact that the employee was acting within the employment

scope at the time of the incident (The Law Dictionary, 2017). In the case study, Superior can

prove that the collision occurred when Jone’s work hours had ended (Raleigh v. Performance

Plumbing and Heating, 2006). Hence, the accident would appear to be outside of the scope

of Jones’s employment by Superior and not subject to the respondeat superior claim.
NEGLIGENT TORT LIABILITY 5

Corporate liability should prove whether the activities of the workers were beneficial

to the company during the incident by using the circumstances and facts of the case (The Law

Dictionary, 2017). If the employee was doing activities that would not benefit the company

when the injury occurred, the activities would not be related to the employer’s duties. Hence,

the principle of respondeat superior will not apply. In the case study, Superior can prove that

the collision happened past Jones’s working hours, showing that the activities he was

conducting at the time of the accident did not benefit Superior (Raleigh v. Performance

Plumbing and Heating, 2006). At this point, the principle of respondeat superior does not

apply and Superior cannot be named in the lawsuit for injuries. Therefore, Superior would

not be liable on respondeat superior ground.

Conclusion

The claimant must prove various legal elements of negligent hiring to confirm that the

defendant acted negligently to help them win a negligence case. For instance, the company

owes the plaintiff a legal duty of care under various circumstances and breaches of the duty

of care. Other elements include causation and the damages or injury the plaintiff suffered.

Based on the evidence, Superior would be liable for negligent hiring. Other than elements of

negligent hiring, there are other legal elements of respondeat superior that corporate liability

should consider to hold a hiring person directly liable for their employee’s actions. Based on

the principles of respondeat superior, Superior would not be liable on respondeat superior

ground.
NEGLIGENT TORT LIABILITY 6

References

FindLaw's team. (2019, November 12). Proving fault: What is negligence? - FindLaw.

Retrieved April 23, 2021, from https://www.findlaw.com/injury/accident-injury-

law/proving-fault-what-is-negligence.html

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)

The Law Dictionary. (2017, June 10). Three conditions required for Respondeat superior.

Retrieved April 23, 2021, from https://thelawdictionary.org/article/three-conditions-

required-respondeat-superior/