Negligent hiring, as a legal doctrine, is a widely recognized tort claim. A general responsibility exists for employers to exercise reasonable care in controlling employees from intentionally harming others on the employer's premises or using the employer's property to harm others, even when those employees are not acting within the scope of their employment.
For example, it has long been recognized that an employer may be held responsible for an unprovoked assault committed by its employee against a customer, if the employer reasonably should not have retained the employee in the face of prior indications of that employee's violent tendencies. The wrong alleged in such claims is not the violent act, but rather accrues from the employer's negligence in leaving the employee with violent propensities in a position to victimize the claimant.
Negligent hiring is a doctrine, which places liability on the employer for actions of its employees during the course and scope of their employment. Negligent hiring doctrine is based on, and expands, the theory of respondent superior ("let the master (or employer) speak), although the precise state of negligent hiring theory is still being argued in the courts. Under a respondent superior, injured third parties generally cannot recover against employers, if the wrongful acts by the employee took place outside the scope of the job and/or were not done in furtherance of the employer's business.
Respondent superior differs importantly from negligent hiring. In respondent superior, only compensatory damages may be awarded. On the other hand, employers found liable for negligent hiring may be forced to pay both compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiff. Respondent superior only covers liability when the employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment.
Employers accrue increased scrutiny when they hire workers with marginal backgrounds that include criminal behavior, drug.......
