Full Answer Section

commit such acts. To establish a claim for negligent hiring, the plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. Existence of an Employer-Employee Relationship: There must be a valid employment relationship between the employer and the individual who committed the tortious act.
2. Employer’s Knowledge or Reason to Know: The employer knew or should have known of the employee’s unfitness or dangerous propensities before the hiring occurred. This requires proving that the employer had actual knowledge or that a reasonable investigation would have revealed the employee’s unfitness.
3. Foreseeability of Harm: The employee’s unfitness or dangerous propensities must have been foreseeable to cause the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff.
4. Proximate Cause: The employer’s failure to exercise reasonable care in hiring the employee must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Application of Negligent Hiring to the Case

1. Employer-Employee Relationship: Superior and Jones clearly had an employer-employee relationship, satisfying the first element.
2. Employer’s Knowledge or Reason to Know: Initially, Superior did not know and had no reason to know of Jones’s driving record because he was hired as an apprentice electrician, not a driver. However, when Jones was promoted to electrician and assigned a company vehicle, Superior had a duty to conduct a reasonable background check. A simple check would have revealed Jones’s suspended license and history of traffic violations. Therefore, Superior should have known of Jones’s unfitness to drive a company vehicle.
3. Foreseeability of Harm: Given Jones’s history of traffic violations, including careless driving, it was foreseeable that he could cause a collision while driving a company vehicle. The harm suffered by the Carsons was a direct result of a motor vehicle accident, which was a foreseeable consequence of Jones’s dangerous driving habits.
4. Proximate Cause: Superior’s failure to conduct a reasonable background check and its decision to assign a company vehicle to Jones, despite his driving record, was the proximate cause of the Carsons’ injuries. Had Superior conducted a background check, they would have likely refrained from assigning Jones a company vehicle.

Analysis of Liability for Negligent Hiring

Superior would likely be held liable for negligent hiring. The company failed to exercise reasonable care in assigning a company vehicle to Jones, knowing or having reason to know of his unfitness to drive. The Carsons’ injuries were a foreseeable consequence of this negligence, and Superior’s failure to conduct a background check was the proximate cause of their injuries.

Respondeat Superior: Legal Elements

Respondeat superior is a legal doctrine that holds an employer vicariously liable for the tortious acts of an employee committed within the scope of their employment. To establish a claim for respondeat superior, the plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. Existence of an Employer-Employee Relationship: There must be a valid employment relationship between the employer and the individual who committed the tortious act.
2. Tortious Act Committed by Employee: The employee must have committed a tortious act (e.g., negligence).
3. Act Within the Scope of Employment: The employee’s tortious act must have been committed within the scope of their employment. This generally means that the act was performed while the employee was carrying out their job duties or was reasonably incidental to their employment.

Application of Respondeat Superior to the Case

1. Employer-Employee Relationship: As previously established, Superior and Jones had an employer-employee relationship.
2. Tortious Act Committed by Employee: Jones committed a tortious act by negligently causing the collision with the Carsons’ vehicles.
3. Act Within the Scope of Employment: This is the most contentious element. Jones was driving the company vehicle after his work hours had ended and was driving home. While Superior intended for Jones to drive the vehicle for work purposes and to take it home, his commute home is generally not considered within the scope of employment under the “going and coming” rule. However, several exceptions exist:
   • Special Errand: If Jones was performing a special errand for Superior at the time of the collision, it could be considered within the scope of employment.
   • Dual Purpose: If Jones’s commute served a dual purpose, benefiting both himself and Superior, it could be considered within the scope of employment.
   • Company Vehicle as Benefit: If the company vehicle was provided as a benefit of employment, it could be argued that the commute was within the scope of employment.
   • Foreseeable Deviation: If the deviation from the scope of employment was foreseeable, Superior might be liable.

In this case, Jones was driving home after work, which typically falls under the “going and coming” rule. However, the fact that he was driving a company vehicle specifically assigned to him for work purposes and that he was expected to take it home blurs the lines. It could be argued that the commute was a foreseeable consequence of his employment and that the company vehicle was provided as a benefit.

Analysis of Liability for Respondeat Superior

Superior’s liability under respondeat superior is less clear-cut. While the employer-employee relationship and the tortious act are established, the scope of employment is debatable. Courts often consider the specific facts of each case when determining whether an employee’s actions were within the scope of employment. Given that Jones was driving a company vehicle assigned to him for work purposes and was expected to take it home, a court might find that his commute was within the scope of employment, thus holding Superior liable. However, the “going and coming” rule provides a strong counter argument.

Conclusion

Superior would likely be held liable for negligent hiring due to its failure to conduct a reasonable background check on Jones and its assignment of a company vehicle to him despite his driving record. Whether Superior would be liable under respondeat superior is less certain. While the “going and coming” rule typically shields employers from liability for employees’ commutes, the specific facts of this case, including the assignment of a company vehicle and the expectation that Jones take it home, could lead a court to find that his commute was within the scope of employment.

To mitigate future risks, Superior should implement thorough background check procedures for all employees assigned company vehicles and clearly define the scope of employment in its policies. They should also consider limiting the use of company vehicles for personal purposes and providing clear guidelines for employee conduct while driving company vehicles.