Responsibililty of Employers for the Actions of Their Employees: The Negligent Hiring Theory of Liability
![handle is hein.journals/chknt53 and id is 729 raw text is: THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYERS FOR THE ACTIONS OF
THEIR EMPLOYEES: THE NEGLIGENT HIRING
THEORY OF LIABILITY
Employers may be liable for the wrongful acts of their employees under
the respondeat superior doctrine or under the negligent hiring theory of tort
liability. The doctrine of respondeat superior has received much attention1
but there has been little analysis of the negligent hiring theory.2 The cases in
which the theory has been discussed have not attempted to clarify its
boundaries.3 The theory is important for it may allow a person injured by a
wrongful act of an employee to recover from the wrongdoer's employer.
The focus under the theory is on the negligence of the employer in hiring or
retaining the wrongdoer and therefore the theory may impose liability where
the respondeat superior doctrine will not.
Although not articulated, in the cases that have found a duty on an
employer under the negligent hiring theory, there have been common
elements which ensure that a close connection is established between the
plaintiff and the employment relationship. This note will briefly compare
when the negligent hiring theory and the respondeat superior doctrine are
available to an injured party to illustrate the distinction between the two. It
will then examine the development of the negligent hiring theory, the
elements that are common to the cases where a duty has been found and the
employer's duty under the theory. It will conclude with an analysis of the
proper limits of the theory.
THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE AND THE
NEGLIGENT HIRING THEORY
Under both the negligent hiring theory and the respondeat superior
doctrine an employer may be held liable for the damages caused by the
wrongful acts of an employee. However, they are distinct bases for enforc-
ing liability and have different requirements. A pair of hypotheticals may be
useful to illustrate the two approaches.
A is employed by D as a bus driver. While on his route A almost
collides with an auto driven by P. P, irate at A's driving, com-
plains to him and demands to see A's license. A, desiring to
continue on his route, attacks P causing serious injury and con-
tinues on his route.
I. See, e.g., Brill, The Liability of an Employerfor the Wilful Torts of His Servants, 45
CHI.-KENT L. REV. 1 (1968) [hereinafter cited as Brill].
2. But see Note 16 CLEV.-MAR. L. REV. 143 (1967); 52 ORE. L. REV. 296 (1973).
3. But see Lange v. B & P Motor Express, Inc., 257 F. Supp. 319 (N.D. Ind. 1966).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/chknt53&div=39&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Responsibililty of Employers for the Actions of Their Employees: The Negligent Hiring Theory of Liability
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most