Superior Electrical's (hereinafter referred to as Superior) irresponsible employment practices that created an undue risk and caused harm to others are discussed in the case given for examination. Superior failed to establish that one of its employees (Cory Jones) was in possession of a valid driver's license and had no record of reckless driving. Even though these facts were inconsequential at the beginning of Jones' career, they became significant during his elevation.
On one of the days Jones was scheduled to drive the corporate vehicle home, he was involved in a car accident. The employee's collision with another vehicle resulted in serious injuries to the mother and her daughter, who were in the vehicle at the time. Carolyn Carson, the victim, wishes to hold Superior liable for the physical harm she and her daughter suffered due to negligent hiring on the part of respondent Superior.
Barnes et al. (2015) define negligence as the failure of an individual to act in a manner that would prevent the formation of unnecessary risks of harm to other members of society. The foundation of negligence law is the presumption that every individual must act with reason and common sense.
Therefore, when a case is taken to court, an individual's conduct is judged based on the "reasonable person" or "reasonable care" criterion. The law of negligence has a wide range of applications, including commercial contexts and difficulties such as negligent hiring. In Georgia, an employer may only be held accountable for negligent hiring if there is proof that the accident was foreseeable (American Bar Association, 2010).
Specifically, an employer must have been aware of or should have been aware of an employee's potential to cause injury to others. In other words, negligent hiring requires both reasonable care and a violation of duty.
Returning to the current situation, it is evident that both criteria of negligent hiring are present. When Superior was initially hiring new staff, a standard of reasonable care was in effect. Even though Jones was first employed as an apprentice electrician, indicating he would not be required to drive to work, it would be appropriate to verify his assertions.
Jones, despite his entry-level position in the company, should not have been excused from the requirement that all electricians possess a valid driver's license. When the employee was promoted to electrician, Superior neglected to perform its duties and verify his qualifications. The corporation learned until after the fact that Jones' license had been suspended for multiple traffic offences.
It is reasonable to conclude, based on this evidence, that Superior will be held accountable for negligent hiring. According to Barnes et al. (2015), a duty of reasonable care is established if the plaintiff is among those who would be reasonably expected to be at risk from the defendant's activities. Barnes et al. (2015) add that many courts define "foreseeable victims" in an imprecise manner, leaving room for interpretation throughout court procedures. In the present case, however, Jones' legal past is directly relevant to his job duties.
Maloney v. B & L Motor Freight, Inc. was a somewhat murkier case. While she was hitchhiking, one of the defendant's drivers sexually attacked the plaintiff. B & L Motor Freight, Inc. asserted that its personnel were not authorized to pick up hitchhikers. In addition, the defendant's participation in disclosing its employee's history of sexual assault was unrelated to the employee's job duties. Therefore, whereas B & L Motor Freight, Inc. had very little ability to predict the behavior of its employees, Superior was fully competent to conduct a background check on Jones and avert the accident.
Carson's second allegation in court is that Superior is responsible for the conduct of the respondent. Respondent superior translates from Latin as "let the master respond." The doctrine of respondent superior means that a firm has vicarious liability for the activities of its agents under U.S. commercial law. Employers in Georgia may be held accountable for automobile and motorbike accidents caused by their workers' reckless driving (O.C.G.A. 51-2-2).
On the basis of this information, the following characteristics of responding superior can be outlined:
An employee violated the law and harmed others while acting in the "course and scope" of their employment and with the intention of benefiting the organization.
In this situation, all three characteristics of respondent superior are present. Jones was the sole careless driver who caused the collision between two automobiles. His careless driving broke the law, regardless of whether he was speeding or not. In addition, it has been established that he caused Carson and her daughter harm. Jones was still performing his obligations because it was his job to keep the vehicle at home when he was driving it home from work.
Consequently, it is reasonable to presume that Jones' activities were "in the course and scope" of his work, even if the accident occurred after hours. Thirdly, the employee's efforts benefited the organization. Specifically, he was responsible for assuring the security of the company car by keeping it at his residence overnight. Aside from that, allowing the employee to keep the vehicle may have afforded him greater flexibility in fulfilling orders, which benefited Superior, the defendant.
To file charges, one must review O.C.G.A. section 51-2-2. The law holds "masters," or employers, vicariously accountable for injuries or deaths caused by their "servants," or employees. However, it must be demonstrated that the employee was not on a personal errand at the time of the accident. In Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing and Heating, for instance, the plaintiff sustained significant injuries in a car accident caused by a Performance Plumbing and Heating employee.
Indeed, driving for work was a responsibility of the employee. According to court documents, the individual often transported job materials and company tools from construction trailers to job sites and back. However, it was determined that the employee was acting beyond the scope of his employment because he was driving his own truck home. While doing so, he was not contributing to the company's success. In contrast, it is evident in the current case that Jones was still performing his duties while driving the company vehicle home. Superior will therefore be charged with both negligent hiring and respondent superior.
References
United States Bar Association (2010). Analysis of irresponsible hiring and negligent retention by state Web.
Barnes, A. J., L. T. Bowers, J. Mallor, and A. Langvardt (2015). Commerce legislation. The McGraw-Hill Higher Education division.
[supanova question]