Negligent Tort Liability Paper

The concept of negligence arises from the duty of reasonable care, where individuals and
corporates are expected to behave in a manner that avoids reasonable risks and harms to others
(Prenkert et al., 2021). This paper evaluates the concepts of negligent hiring and respondeat
superior. The paper also includes opinions on whether the organization would be liable for
negligent hiring and on respondeat superior grounds given the case study.
Important Facts in The Case Study
In the case study, Jones was employed by a superior and made statements that his driving
license was valid and had no records of previous traffic violations. The employer believes this to
be true. At the time, the employer does not verify the details because they hire him. After all, he
is an apprentice and does not use the company car. However, after his promotion to electrician,
he is assigned a company car and gets in an accident, causing harm to Carolyn Carson and her
son. The collision is a result of sole negligence from Jones. In her suit, Carolyn alleges
respondeat superior and negligent hiring.
Identify and Discuss the Legal Elements of Negligent Hiring
Employers are expected to take measures that protect business stakeholders such as
employees, customers, and the general public from harm caused by employees. To prove
negligent hiring, employees must prove an existing employment relationship, employee
incompetence, employers’ awareness of the incompetence, and employee actions acting within
the scope of employment that causes damage.
Elements of Negligent Hiring and Facts in The Case
There is proof of employment between Superior and Jones. Jones is hired as an
apprentice worker and then promoted to the electrician position. Jones is an incompetent driver.

3
There is evidence of prior traffic infractions to the extent that Jones’s license is suspended. In the
case study, Superior is unaware of the employee’s incompetence. However, this is because the
employer does not take adequate measures to become aware. When Superior promotes Jones to
the level of an electrician, it does not confirm the status of his driver’s license and history of
traffic offenses after failing to do so when hiring him. However, at the time, it was not necessary
because his employment status meant that he was not in a position to drive. At the time of the
collision, Jones was acting within the scope of his employment because employers are expected
to take the company car back home at the end of the day. Finally, Jones’ negligent actions cause
harm to Carolyn Carson and her son. Organizations are required to treat the general public with
reasonable safety. In Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing and Heating, the judges note that the
company had a duty to the driving public when hiring Weese. Therefore, when it failed to
enquire about Weese’s driving record, it failed to act reasonably and, in so doing, created an
undue risk of harm to the public.
Analyze Whether Superior Would Be Liable for Negligent Hiring
Superior would be liable for negligent hiring for the following reasons. Jones was acting
within the scope of employment. At superior, employees are expected to go home with work
cars. The collision happens as Jones is on his way home from work. In Raleigh v. Performance
Plumbing and Heating, Inc, the jury rejected negligent hiring cause for Performance Plumbing
despite awarding damages to Raleigh due to the fact that Weese was not acting within the scope
of his employment when he caused an injury.
Secondly, employers must vet applicants in job hiring to protect other people from risks
caused by employees. Superior does not check references to confirm Jones’ driving history.
Therefore, Superior does not exercise reasonable care to protect Carolyn Carson from harm. In

4

Malorney v B&L Motor Freight, the judges note that B&L is responsible for checking
employees’ previous non-driving criminal records and that lack of such a check makes B & L
liable for voluntary ignorance of facts. The judges also note that while the process of checking
criminal records may be expensive, such expense should be measured against the utility derived
from such a check.
In both Maloney v B & L Motor Freight and Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing and
Heating, the judges place a significant burden on both employers to screen and investigate
applicants to avoid risks of violent acts or other perils directed towards employees and others.
This is the first way employers can protect themselves from negligent hiring and negligent
retention liability.
Identify and Discuss the Legal Elements of Respondeat Superior
Under the concept of respondeat superior, the employer may be held liable for
employees’ unlawful acts or omissions under certain circumstances. In the case study, Superior
solely relies on the information provided by Jones when it fails to verify his driving record at the
time of his employment. Several conditions must be fulfilled for the theory of respondeat
superior to hold. The action that caused the harm must have been performed by an employee or
agent of the corporation, the employee or agent must be acting within their scope of authority
and that the harm occurred while the employee or agent was working in an activity meant to
benefit the corporation; is the action common in that job or perhaps even a characteristic of the
job. There also arises an issue of foreseeability. At the time an employee is hired and based on
what the employer has found out about them, can future actions be anticipated?
In the case study, the collision that caused harm to Carolyn and her son was carried out
by an employee of Superior. Jones was acting within the scope of his employment when he

5
caused harm. He was expected to take the company car home. The activity that Jones was
carrying out was a characteristic of the job. Superior should have foreseen the outcome that
caused harm to Carolyn if they carried out a background check on Jones and his driving history.

6

References

Malorney v. B L Motor Freight, Inc., 146 Ill. App. 3d 265, 496 N.E.2d 1086 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)
https://casetext.com/case/malorney-v-b-l-motor-freight-inc
Prenkert, J. D., Barnes, J. A., Perry, J., Haugh, T., & Stemler, A. (2021). Business Law: The
Ethical, Global, and Digital Environment (18th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing and Heating, Inc., 109 P.3d 978 (Colo. App. 2004).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2286240193668254875&q=Raleigh+v.+Performa
nce+Plumbing+and+Heating,+Inc&hl=en&as_sdt=2006