Employer Liability For Negligent Hiring Read More

Discussion 1employer Liability For Negligent Hiringread Malorney V B

Discuss what duty or duties a business has with regard to checking the background of potential employees before hiring. Do you agree that businesses should be liable for injuries resulting from negligent hiring? Why or why not?

Paper For Above instruction

The issue of employer liability for negligent hiring centers on the responsibilities businesses have in vetting potential employees' backgrounds before making hiring decisions. This legal doctrine aims to protect third parties from harm caused by employees whom employers negligently hired without adequately assessing their fitness for the position, especially when such employees engage in tortious or criminal activities during the scope of their employment.

Legal obligations of businesses regarding background checks are anchored on the duty of ordinary care. Employers must exercise reasonable diligence to verify the accuracy of the information provided by candidates and assess their suitability for the role. In the case of Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc., the court examined whether the employer had a duty to investigate Harbour’s criminal background, recognizing that a trucking company entrusted with drivers carries inherent risks, especially when drivers operate vehicles with sleeping compartments and may encounter vulnerable individuals such as hitchhikers.

Employers are expected to consider the foreseeability of harm and the potential risks associated with the employment. The legal doctrine imposes a duty to make reasonable inquiries to prevent foreseeable injuries, particularly when circumstances suggest a higher risk of harm. In the Malorney case, Harbour's known history of violent sex-related crimes signaled a potential danger that the employer should have contemplated before hiring him as a long-haul driver. Failure to investigate such background factors can constitute negligent hiring if it is established that the employer’s failure to screen adequately contributed to the injury of a third party.

Assigning liability depends heavily on the concept of foreseeability and public policy considerations. Courts have held that employers must take reasonable steps to prevent hiring individuals unfit for the role, particularly when the risks are apparent or could have been identified through proper background checks. It is important to note, however, that the scope of this duty is balanced against the burden of screening all applicants. The courts generally recognize that employers are not expected to conduct exhaustive investigations into every candidate's background but must exercise reasonable care based on the nature of the job and associated risks.

In the Malorney v. B&L case, the court acknowledged that the employer’s failure to verify Harbour's criminal record posed a negligent hiring risk. Harbour had previously committed violent crimes, and B&L's oversight in failing to verify his criminal history contributed to the tragic assault. The court emphasized that the duty to investigate is particularly salient when the employer has reason to suspect that the employee might pose a danger based on available information. The decision aligns with broader legal principles that negligent hiring occurs when an employer, knowing or should have known about an individual’s dangerous propensities, negligently hires them without adequate background checks.

Opinions are divided on whether businesses should be liable for injuries caused by negligent hiring. Proponents argue that holding employers accountable incentivizes thorough screening processes, thereby reducing preventable injuries and promoting public safety. Critics, however, contend that imposing strict liability could impose excessive burdens on businesses, especially small enterprises with limited resources for comprehensive background checks. Nonetheless, many jurisdictions have adopted a standard that emphasizes what constitutes reasonable care, rather than overly burdensome screening mandates.

In conclusion, businesses do hold a legal duty to conduct reasonable background checks to mitigate foreseeable risks posed by potential employees. The case of Malorney v. B&L illustrates that neglecting this duty can result in liability for injuries that could have been avoided, reinforcing the importance of diligent screening processes. Ultimately, the balance between employer responsibilities and practical limitations should guide the application of negligent hiring principles, ensuring adequate protection for third parties without unduly burdening employers with impossible standards.

References

  • Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc., 146 Ill. App. 3d 265, 496 N.E.2d (1986).
  • Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
  • Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317 (1965).
  • Daniels, D. A. (2017). Negligent hiring and retention: A review. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 12(1), 155-180.
  • Neering v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 73 Ill. 2d 55 (1979).
  • Harper, J. (2018). Employee screening and liability: Legal considerations. Criminal Law Journal, 42(2), 233-245.
  • Garrow, D. J., & Christman, L. M. (2015). Tort law: Cases, perspectives, and problems. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Kelly, S. (2019). Employer negligence and third-party injuries: Legal analysis. Law Review, 66, 45-67.
  • Australian Institute of Management. (2020). Legal obligations in employee screening. AIM Publication.
  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021). Background check guidance and legal compliance. EEOC Reports.

Related Assignments