The Risks of Negligent Hiring

About Negligent Hiring

The Risks

When a Minnesota woman was raped at knifepoint by the resident manager who used a pass key to enter her apartment the landlord was ordered to pay $100,000 in damages after it turned out the assailant was on parole for armed robbery and the landlord had failed to check his prison record.

A real estate agent with a history of forgery and bogus-check writing duped a customer into paying off a $158,000 loan.  The real estate company was aware of the agent's past offenses and as a result was held liable for the $158,000 loss plus $25,000 in punitive damages.

An emerging legal doctrine that makes employers responsible for checking the backgrounds of job applicants--particularly those in sensitive positions where there is contact with the public-- has spread to nearly 30 states.  It is subjecting companies to new risks for damages stemming from the behavior of employees.

Under the 'negligent hiring' theory that emerged about 15 years ago, employers who know, or should have known, that an employee posed a threat to the public may be liable for damages -- even if the employee's transgressions were outside the scope of employment.

Courts have long held that companies are responsible for employees' behavior while on duty.  For example, a taxicab passenger injured in a traffic accident may sue the cab company.

The negligent hiring doctrine goes a step further.  It would provide grounds for damages if the cab company hired a convicted rapist without checking his record and the man returned to the home of a female passenger to assault her.

The states where courts have recognized the doctrine are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and more are coming.