Damages From Hiring, Training or Supervising

          When someone is injured in an accident they often come to us to find out if they have a claim. If the injuries were caused by someone acting in a work capacity, there is most often a claim against that someone’s employer. This is because the employee’s negligence is assigned or “imputed” to the employer if the person was on the employer’s business at the time of the accident. This is how we come to bring claims against national and multinational corporations for personal injury claims. If you were injured because of Bill Smith’s failure to use due care when Bill was driving, then you have a claim for compensation for those injuries from Bill Smith. But if Bill Smith was driving a FedEx truck or an IBM car, you may have a claim against that business if he was driving the employer’s vehicle because he was working for the company at the time of the accident.

          However, in certain instances these claims go a step further. If Bill Smith has a dubious driving record or an expired commercial license and his employer knew or should have known about those facts, you probably have a separate, independent claim against the employer for its failure to properly hire, train and/or supervise its employees. This is not the type of vicarious liability mentioned above where the blame is imputed to the employer due to the nature of the employment relationship, but rather it is a direct claim against the employer for its own negligence in failing to properly hire, train or supervise an employee. It has long been the approach towards the law, as stated in legal treatises such as the Restatement (Second) of Agency.

          This independent, second type of claim was stated as the law in New Hampshire even prior to 1985, but it was then that the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict finding that a municipality was liable for its negligent hiring, training and supervision of a police officer where it issued a set of handcuffs and a service revolver to a newly hired, but entirely untrained police officer. Not surprisingly, a citizen was injured as a result of that town’s negligence in doing so. Where an employer improperly furnishes an employee with a dangerous instrumentality, whether it is a vehicle, a service revolver or a set of handcuffs, that employer can be held directly liable for the damages that flow from that negligent act. Likewise, if the employer hires an inappropriate person or fails to adequately train that person where a reasonable person would do so, the employer likewise faces the prospect of a lawsuit should you be injured as a result of that negligence.   

Timothy G. Kerrigan is a director at Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His present practice focuses on complex legal situations both in the litigation and in the ADR context. He is available as a litigator, client advocate or as an ADR neutral. Mr. Kerrigan is certified by the State Office of Mediation and Arbitration both as a mediator and as an arbitrator. You can reach Attorney Kerrigan by e-mail at tkerrigan@nashualaw.com.

To read additional Personal Injury and Worker’s Compensation Articles, Click Here.

To return to the Legal Articles Home Page, Click Here.

To return to the Hamblett & Kerrigan Home Page, Click Here.