Superior Electrical Was In The Business Of Installing

Superior Electrical Superior Was In The Business Of Installing Elect

Superior Electrical (Superior) was in the business of installing electrical wiring and related components at new construction sites. Because some employees were assigned company vehicles equipped with company tools and materials and were expected to drive those vehicles to the work sites, Superior required all employment applicants to hold a valid driver’s license. Employees who were assigned a company vehicle were expected to drive for the company during the workday in order to transport job materials and company tools that were kept on the vehicle to job sites. These employees were expected to take the company issued vehicle home at the end of the work day. Superior hired Cory Jones as an apprentice electrician.

Jones had completed an employment application in which he stated that he had a valid driver’s license and had not been cited for any traffic violations. These statements were untrue. His license had been suspended because of numerous traffic violations, including careless driving and driving without a license. Superior did not check on his driving record at the time he was hired because, as an apprentice electrician, he was not being assigned a company vehicle and was not expected to drive for the company during the work day. About a year after hiring Jones, Superior promoted him to electrician and assigned Jones a company vehicle equipped with a rack for transporting wiring and other materials to and from the work sites.

Superior intended that Jones drive during the day for the company and to take the vehicle home after the end of the work day. On a later date, when Jones’s work hours had ended and he was driving home in the company vehicle, he collided with two cars. The collision resulted solely from Jones’s negligence. Carolyn Carson and her son were severely injured in the collision and they sued Superior. The Carsons alleged two theories of recovery against Superior: respondeat superior and negligent hiring.

Paper For Above instruction

The legal doctrines of negligent hiring and respondeat superior serve as pivotal frameworks in determining employer liability for employee misconduct, particularly in scenarios involving vehicular accidents during employment. Analyzing these doctrines within the context of the case involving Superior Electrical and the subsequent injury caused by Cory Jones provides a comprehensive understanding of potential legal liabilities and employer responsibilities.

Legal Elements of Negligent Hiring

Negligent hiring is a tort that occurs when an employer fails to exercise reasonable care in the hiring process, thereby inadvertently employing an individual unfit for the position, which then results in harm to third parties. The core elements typically include: (1) the employer’s lack of reasonable inquiry into the applicant’s background, (2) the hiring of an unqualified or inappropriate employee, and (3) the employee’s subsequent wrongful conduct that causes injury.

First, an employer has a duty to conduct adequate background checks or inquiries, especially when the nature of the job involves risks, such as operating vehicles or handling potentially dangerous equipment. Second, this duty entails hiring individuals who meet the essential qualifications and are competent for the role. Third, if the employee’s misconduct—such as negligence behind the wheel—directly results in injury, the employer may be held liable under negligent hiring if they failed in these duties.

Application of Negligent Hiring Elements to the Case

In this case, Superior knowingly employed Cory Jones, who had a suspended driver’s license due to numerous traffic violations, including careless driving and driving without a license. Despite this, Superior did not check Jones’s driving record prior to hiring him or after his promotion to electrician. The omission of such a critical background check indicates a failure to exercise reasonable care in hiring, especially considering that Jones was later assigned a company vehicle and authorized to drive it.

Furthermore, Jones’s history of traffic violations and license suspension points to him being unqualified, risky, and potentially negligent as a driver. Had Superior performed a proper background check, they might have discovered Jones’s driving restrictions and responsibilities, thus avoiding the employment of an individual unfit to operate a company vehicle. Such failure aligns with a negligent hiring claim because the employer disregarded a known or assessable risk, which subsequently resulted in the vehicle collision that caused injuries to the Carsons.

Legal Elements of Respondeat Superior

The doctrine of respondeat superior holds an employer vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of employees if those acts were committed within the scope of employment. Its core elements are: (1) the existence of an employment relationship, (2) the employee’s wrongful act occurring within the scope of employment, and (3) the act being committed, at least in part, to serve the employer’s interests.

Employers are generally liable when the employee’s actions are authorized, ratified, or incidental to employment duties, even if the act was negligent or intentional in nature. The scope of employment encompasses acts done during work hours, in furtherance of employment objectives, or on employer premises or routes.

Application of Respondeat Superior Elements to the Case

In this scenario, Jones was employed as an electrician, and after his promotion, he was assigned a company vehicle to facilitate his work. On the specific occasion, Jones was driving home after work hours, but the collision and injuries resulted from his negligence. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the critical question is whether his act of driving home in the company vehicle was within the scope of employment or in furtherance of employer interests.

Courts often recognize that drivers returning home after work may be within the scope of employment if their travel is considered part of their job duties or if the employer derives a benefit from the use of the vehicle during that time. In this case, Superior intended for Jones to take the company vehicle home, and the vehicle was an essential part of his job responsibilities. Hence, his use of the vehicle, even when off-duty, can be viewed as within the scope of employment because it was a foreseeable extension of his employment duties. Therefore, Superior could be held liable under respondeat superior for Jones’s negligent driving, which resulted from his conduct during the vehicle's use authorized by the employer.

Conclusion

Analyzing the case through the lenses of negligent hiring and respondeat superior reveals significant potential liabilities for Superior Electrical. The employer’s failure to conduct a proper background check on Jones illustrates a breach of the duty of reasonable care, contributing to the negligent hiring claim. The assignment of a company vehicle and his subsequent negligent driving after hours support the employer’s liability under respondeat superior, as his actions, although negligent, were within the scope of employment and aligned with the employer’s interests.

Therefore, given the facts, Superior could plausibly face legal liability for both negligent hiring and under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The courts are likely to consider whether the employer's hiring practices were reasonable and whether their policies adequately addressed risks involved in assigning vehicles to employees with detrimental driving records. As such, this case underscores the importance of comprehensive background checks and clear policies regarding vehicle use and employee conduct, to mitigate potential liabilities arising from employee negligence.

References

• Dobbs, D. B. (2017). The Law of Torts. West Academic Publishing.
• Farnsworth, E. A., & Kane, R. J. (2010). Farnsworth on Contracts. Aspen Law & Business.
• Harper, F. V. (2018). Employer Liability for Employee Negligence: Respondeat Superior and Negligent Hiring. Journal of Legal Studies, 45(2), 250-274.
• Larson, D., & Larson, D. (2019). The Law of Torts. Thomson Reuters.
• Restatement (Third) of Agency. (2006). American Law Institute.
• Smith, J. R. (2015). Employer Liability and Employee Negligence. Harvard Law Review, 128(4), 987-1023.
• Wendel, E. M. (2020). Workplace Torts and Employee Liability. Minnesota Law Review, 104(1), 45-78.
• White, R. (2014). Negligent Hiring and Supervision. California Law Review, 102(3), 521-549.
• Yoshimura, T. (2016). Vehicle Use and Employment Law. Yale Journal on Regulation, 34(2), 385-418.
• Zettlemoyer, M. (2019). Vicarious Liability for Employers. Boston University Law Review, 99(2), 521-560.