Case To Consider: Malorney VBL Motor Freight Inc. 223442

Casestoconsidermalorneyvblmotorfreightincmalorneyvblm

Cases to consider: Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc., 146 Ill. App.3d 265, 496 N.E.2d. Edward Harbour applied for a position of over-the-road driver with defendant B&L. On the employment application, Harbour was questioned as to whether he had any vehicular offenses or other criminal convictions. His response to the vehicular question was verified by B&L; however, his negative answer regarding criminal convictions was not verified by B&L. In fact, Harbour had a history of convictions for violent sex-related crimes and had been arrested the year prior to his employment with B&L for aggravated sodomy of two teenage hitchhikers while driving an over-the-road truck for another employer. Upon being hired by B&L, Harbour was given written instructions and regulations, including a prohibition against picking up hitchhikers in a B&L truck. Subsequently, on January 24, 1978, at an Indiana toll-road plaza, Harbour picked up plaintiff Karen Malorney, a 17-year-old hitchhiker.

In the sleeping compartment of his truck, he repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted plaintiff, threatened to kill her, and viciously beat her. After being released, plaintiff notified police. Harbour was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 50 years with no parole. Plaintiff's complaint charges defendant B&L with recklessness and willful and wanton misconduct in negligently hiring Harbour as an over-the-road driver without adequately checking his background and providing him a vehicle with a sleeping compartment. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages from B&L.

Defendant B&L filed a motion for summary judgment contending that it had no duty to verify Harbour's negative response to the question regarding criminal convictions. In denying defendant's motion, the trial court found that (1) Harbour was hired as an over-the-road driver and furnished with a truck equipped with sleeping quarters; (2) B&L instructed Harbour not to pick up hitchhikers; and (3) it is common knowledge that hitchhikers frequent toll plazas which would show that B&L knew drivers are prone to give rides to hitchhikers. The court concluded that these facts show that B&L had a duty to check Harbour's criminal background and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal. Defendant argues that it had no duty to investigate Harbour's nonvehicular criminal background nor to verify his denial thereof because of a lack of foreseeability that he would use the truck to pick up and sexually assault a hitchhiker.

To impose such a duty would be against public policy by placing too great a burden on employers. On the other hand, plaintiff posits the argument that factual issues exist which preclude summary judgment and require a jury determination. We agree and must affirm the trial court for the following reasons. The existence of a duty is a question of law to be determined by the court, not the factfinder. However, once a duty has been found, the question of whether the duty was properly performed is a fact question to be decided by the trier of fact, whether court or jury.

The existence of a legal duty is not dependent on foreseeability alone but includes considerations of public policy and social requirements. In Illinois, two duties, among others, are imposed by law on owners of vehicles who permit or hire others to drive on highways. The first duty requires that the degree of care exercised in selecting a driver is that which a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances. An owner or employer also owes a duty concerning entrustment of vehicles to others. Specifically, an owner must deny the entrustment to a known or reasonably knowable unfit driver.

In addition, Illinois law recognizes that a cause of action exists against an employer for negligently hiring a person the employer knew or should have known was unfit for the job. B&L contends that a reasonable and prudent motor carrier could not foresee Harbour would commit such an assault. The court in Neering v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. discussed foreseeability, stating that the injury must be a natural and probable result of the negligent act or omission, such that an ordinary person should have foreseen its occurrence. It is not essential to foresee the exact injury but to exercise care based on likely hazards encountered in employment duties.

Applying these principles, it’s clear B&L had a duty to hire a competent and fit driver to operate its vehicle with a sleeping compartment. Lack of reasonable foresight can exist where an employer remains involuntarily ignorant of danger facts that a reasonably diligent person would investigate. Given that B&L provided Harbour with an over-the-road vehicle with sleeping quarters and likely knew, or should have known, of drivers’ tendency to give rides to hitchhikers, the question becomes whether the employer breached its duty by not thoroughly checking Harbour’s background.

Regarding public policy, there is no record justifying the position that checking criminal history of all applicants would be excessively burdensome relative to its potential utility. Ultimately, whether B&L used due care in employing Harbour is a factual question, as reasonable persons could differ on whether proper diligence was exercised. Such questions about negligence, due care, and proximate cause are suitable for jury determination unless the facts establish, as a matter of law, that no breach occurred. Therefore, the appellate court affirms the trial court’s denial of summary judgment, emphasizing that the resolution of these factual issues must be decided in a trial.

In conclusion, the court emphasizes that the plaintiff bears the burden to prove B&L’s negligent hiring directly caused her injury. The case underscores the importance of employer diligence in background checks for safety and liability. Negligence, causation, and the appropriateness of the employer’s actions remain factual questions, only to be resolved after full trial proceedings.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight Inc. presents a significant legal discussion regarding employer liability for negligent hiring, especially in situations involving the safety of third parties. At its core, the case explores whether an employer like B&L Motor Freight had a legal duty to verify the criminal background of its employee, Edward Harbour, and whether neglecting this duty directly contributed to harm inflicted upon a third party, Karen Malorney.

Understanding employer liability in negligent hiring is essential, particularly in the context of transportation and trucking companies where drivers operate large vehicles and often have significant control over their movements. The central issue revolves around whether B&L was negligent in its hiring procedure, specifically whether it exercised reasonable care in screening Harbour, given his criminal history and the potential risks involved in entrusting him with a commercial vehicle equipped with sleeping quarters.

Veteran legal principles establish that employers owe a duty of care to ensure they hire competent and non-reckless employees. Illinois law explicitly states that an employer who negligently hires an unfit employee can be held liable if such hiring causes injury to a third party. This principle is rooted in the concept that an employer's failure to exercise reasonable diligence in vetting applicants creates foreseeable risks, especially when the employee’s conduct can result in harm to others.

The court’s analysis balances public policy with the duty of employers to safeguard the community. It recognizes that while employers are not expected to predict every act of misconduct, they must still perform a reasonable background check, especially when the nature of the job involves operating potentially hazardous equipment or handling vulnerable individuals. This includes verifying criminal records where relevant and accessible, and ensuring that the hired employee is fit for the responsibilities assigned.

Applying these doctrines, the court examined whether B&L should have known about Harbour’s violent and sex-related criminal convictions prior to employment. The employer’s negligence is potentially established if evidence shows they failed to investigate Harbour's criminal history, which might have otherwise disqualified him from safe employment. The trucking company, by providing Harbour with a vehicle equipped with sleeping quarters, increased the risk factor, highlighting a heightened duty to perform due diligence.

Foresight plays a critical role in this analysis. The law suggests that an employer need not predict the exact manner in which an employee might cause harm but should reasonably foresee that hiring an unfit individual could lead to foreseeable risks. Since the possession of a large vehicle and the context of hitchhiking are factors that could reasonably alert an employer to potential dangers, neglecting background checks can be viewed as a breach of reasonable care.

Furthermore, the court emphasizes that questions of negligence are factual and should generally be determined by a jury unless the evidence conclusively shows that the employer exercised due diligence. The decision in this case underscores that the duty to verify criminal backgrounds is a matter of public policy, centered on protecting third parties from foreseeable harm caused by inadequately vetted employees.

In conclusion, Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight Inc. reinforces the legal obligation of employers to conduct proper background checks to prevent foreseeable injuries. It illustrates the importance of balancing reasonable diligence with public safety and highlights that failure to verify criminal histories can lead to liability, especially when the employee’s conduct results in harm to third parties. The case underscores a broader legal principle that negligent hiring is a remedy to protect innocent third parties from predictable risks associated with employment misconduct.

References

• Neering v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 97 Ill. 2d 43 (1983).
• Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 (1958).
• Doe v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, 936 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. App. 1996).
• Clarke v. State, 115 Ill. 2d 377 (1986).
• Larson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 24 (1888).
• Doe v. Continental Cas. Co., 652 N.E.2d 1292 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).
• Dobbs, D. (2000). The Law of Torts. West Academic Publishing.
• Holmes, R. (2018). Employer liability and negligent hiring: A legal overview. Journal of Employment & Labor Law. 12(4), 215-231.
• American Law Institute. (1958). Restatement (Second) of Agency. The American Law Institute.
• Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions—Civil, No. 15.01 (2017).