Running head: NEGLIGENT TORT LIABILITY 1

Ed Negligent Tort Liability

Andrew E. Snively

Law & Ethics in the Business Environment BUS 624

Marla Muse

01/13/2020
NEGLIGENT TORT LIABILITY 2

Hiring the right people for a business is one of the most important things the human

resource department has to do for its company. When hiring individuals to work for your

company they are now representation of the company and what it stands for. Many companies

now run a thorough background check to include credit checks, drug test, criminal history

research on top of the normal reference checks that most companies do. Ensuring that you have

responsible employee’s that will make good decisions on behalf of the company can save the

company a lot of money in the event something was to occur.

Superior Electrical is a company that purpose is to install electrical wiring and

components in new construction sites. The company mainly hires electricians as this I the type of

trait you need to be successful in the field. Since the company has to be mobile to support their

customer’s, some of the employee’s that work for Superior are assigned vehicles. This is

necessary in order to be able to transport themselves other employees and all the equipment to

the job site from the company warehouse to the job site. Due to the fact that any employee

maybe issued a company vehicle at any time Superior required all employment applicants to hold

a Valid Drivers License. When the Superior hired Cory Jones as an apprentice electrician he had

stated on his application that he had a valid driver license and had not been cited for any traffic

violations. These statements were false, which is why Superior is facing a lawsuit. Cory Jones

after a year of employment was promoted to electrician and assigned a company vehicle. While

on his way home from work in the company vehicle due to Cory’s negligence he collided with

two cars and severely injured Carolyn Carson and her Son. The Carson family has filed a lawsuit

against Superior. The lawsuit states the Superior is being sued for negligent hiring and

respondent superior.
NEGLIGENT TORT LIABILITY 3

Negligent hiring is two separate things that I will define. Negligence as defined by the

text book is “as conduct that falls below the level reasonably necessary to protect others against

significant risks of harm. The elements of a negligence claim are (1) that the defendant owed a

duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant committed a breach of this duty, and (3) that

this breach was the actual and proximate cause of injury experienced by the plaintiff.” Now

when you take negligence and combine it with business to form Negligent hiring it is a claim

made by an injured party against a company based on the fact that the company should have

known about the employees background and should have not allowed them to perform whatever

task that was at hand that lead to the injures that where sustained by the plaintiff. When it comes

to Superior and the case at hand, they did some of their due diligence when screening for

employee’s by asking on their application by asking the two questions, do you carry a valid

driver’s license, and have you been cited for any traffic violations. Cory Jones as an applicant

lied most likely because he knew that if he had answered the questions truthfully, they may not

have hired him for the job as these where requirements in order to attain employment. Superior

as a company did not obtain Cory Jones driving history to validate his answers on his

application. The reason that Superior did not initially obtain Cory Jones driving history is

because was being hired for an apprentice electrician, as an apprentice electrician you are not

assigned a company vehicle and are not expected to drive for the company during the work day

as the role does not require it. But where Superior is being held accountable is that after a year on

employment Cory Jones was promoted to Electrician his role within the company has changed

and not is assigned and required to drive a company vehicle during the work day and is allowed

to drive it during his personal time as well. Superior was negligent as they did not obtain Cory

Jones’s driving record prior to give him full time access to the company vehicle. In doing so due
NEGLIGENT TORT LIABILITY 4

to Cory Jones’s negligence and poor driving habits, noted we know he has a record of poor

driving habits because the state has revoked his license status from active to not active due to

numerous violations, one which include careless driving he has collided with Carolyn Carson

and her son. The collision that occurred because of the result of Superior’s negligence in giving

Cory Jones a vehicle to drive has resulted in the mother and son to be severely injured. Based on

the facts presented in the prompt and the definition of what it means for a company to have

negligently hired an employee I would find Superior liable for all damages caused the Carolyn

Carson and her son.

The second part of the lawsuit against Superior is that the company is liable for superior

respondeat. The text book definition is “Under this doctrine, a principal who is an employer is

liable for torts committed by agents (1) who are employees and (2) who commit the tort while

acting within the scope of their employment. Respondeat superior makes the principal liable both

for an employee’s negligence and for their torts. When you break down this part of the lawsuit,

superior respondeat in relation to this case is because the employer who is responsible for the

actions of the employee due to the fact, they issued him a company truck and allowed him to use

it for personal use as well as for company use. Regardless that he did not have an active driver’s

license and multiple violations against him the company due to the tort of negligent driving in a

company truck can be held liable due to the fact that he is an employee of the company.

Respondeat Superior also holds the individual liable for his actions due to the fact that he

knowingly lied on an application of employment, where he knew that in his job role and

progression with the company that at some point he would be issued a company vehicle. Also, he

knowingly accepted a promotion, in which he was issued a company vehicle and did not advise

the company that he did not meet the proper requirements the company had set forth in order to
NEGLIGENT TORT LIABILITY 5

be allowed to be issued a company vehicle. Based on all of the facts that are presented in the case

and the definition in the law, I find that Superior and Cory Jones can both be found liable for the

actions that occurred based on their negligence.

As an employer ensuring that you are hiring and retaining the right employee to represent

your company regardless if they are at work or in their own personal space is important. Many

companies have moved to a more intense form of screening when it comes to their employee’s

and amount of responsibility and liability that they have within the company. In this case

Superior and their employee Cory Jones based on the evidence provided and the theories of

recover against them I would find both company and individuals liable for the damages that

occurred to the Carson family.

References

Langvardt, A. W., Barnes, A. J., Prenkert, J. D., McCrory, M. A., & Perry, J. E. (2019). Business
law: The ethical, global, and e-commerce environment (17th ed.). Retrieved from
https://www.vitalsource.com

Youssef, C. (2015). Human resource management. (2nd ed.).  San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint