Negligent Hiring/Retention

Human resources professionals have been breathing a bit easier because
of the retrenchment in the "At-Will" Employment Doctrine.(1) The repreive
was short lived, however, as a relatively new employee relations law
scourge has surfaced- The Tort doctrine of .(2)

Although this theory is not new, it's prominenece is growing. This
added cause of action in tort law is resulting in increased employer
liability and risk. Often, Court award outcomes in these cases are in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars, and more, and are likely to be upheld on

The limitations placed on human resources professionals and employers
relating to preemployment inquiries make an interesting ...

Want to read the rest of this paper?
Join Essayworld today to view this entire essay
and over 50,000 other term papers

Human resources managers can be heard in
corporate hallways mumbling about these apparent conflicts and
incongriuties in common law and government mandate.

Historically, If a worker commited a negligent act, a plaintiff often
would sue his or her employer under the theory of Respondeat Superior, or
let the master respond. (3) This doctrine holds the employer liable for his
or her employees' negligent, on the job actions and does not depend in any
way on the fault of the employer. (4) Common law held that employers owed
thier employees a duty to provide a safe place to work. Eventually, this
duty was extended to providing safe employees, because the courts reasoned
that a dangerous co-worker is comparable to a defective machine. (5)

In the majority of successful negligent hiring/retention court cases
the nature of the relationship between customer plaintiff and business
defendant seems to drive the outcome. In cases in which plaintiffs have
recovered, there appears to be a ...

Get instant access to over 50,000 essays.
Write better papers. Get better grades.

Already a member? Login

331 N.W. 2d, 907 {1983}.) This means that the employer
should have known before hiring an individual that the person was unfit for
employment. Negligent retention is an after-the-fact consideration (See
Cherry vs. Kelly services Inc., 2d 463 {1984}) applying to the instances in
which the employer becomes aware of the employee's unfitness after hiring
him or her. Here the employer has an obligation to initiate an action to
counter the person's unfitness, including retraining, reassignment,
rescheduling or discharge ( See Cutter vs. Farmington, 498 A. 2d 316{N.H.
1985}.) For example, in Abbot vs. Payne et al (57 So. 2d 1156 {Fla. App. 4
Dist. 1984}) a negligent hiring and employment ...

Succeed in your coursework without stepping into a library.
Get access to a growing library of notes, book reports,
and research papers in 2 minutes or less.


Negligent Hiring/Retention. (2007, September 13). Retrieved May 24, 2019, from
"Negligent Hiring/Retention.", 13 Sep. 2007. Web. 24 May. 2019. <>
"Negligent Hiring/Retention." September 13, 2007. Accessed May 24, 2019.
"Negligent Hiring/Retention." September 13, 2007. Accessed May 24, 2019.
Join today and get instant access to this and 50,000+ other essays

Added: 9/13/2007 08:22:24 PM
Category: Miscellaneous
Type: Premium Paper
Words: 3355
Pages: 13

Save | Report


Save and find your favorite essays easier

Violence in the Workplace
Debtor-Creditor Relationships
Slaves Of The White God
Crime And The Death Penalty
Organization And Benefits In Th...
The Chamber
Pre-Employment Drug Testing
Preferred Hiring Practices
Labor Unions
Risks And Responsibilities Of
Copyright | Cancel | Contact Us

Copyright © 2019 Essayworld. All rights reserved