FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W314969096> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W314969096 startingPage "389" @default.
• W314969096 abstract "IN RECENT years, negligent hiring and retention cases have seen dramatic growth. Cases have involved employees who commit criminal. violent or other wrongful and intentional torts. Negligent hiring occurs when an employer places an unfit in an employment situation that entails an unreasonable risk of harm to Negligent retention is closely related to negligent hiring, but these actions allege negligence after an employee is hired rather than at the time of hire.(1) The tort of negligent retention, which was recognized first by the Florida Supreme Court in 1954, requires that the employer become aware or should have been aware of problems with an employee that indicated that employee's unfitness, and that the employer failed to take further action, such as investigating, discharge or reassignment.(2) BACKGROUND The traditional basis for an employer's liability for its employees' acts was the doctrine of respondeat superior, under which the employee had to be acting within the scope of employment or in furtherance of the employer's interest for the employer to be responsible.(3) Under respondeat superior, the employer stands in the shoes of its employees. The justification for this vicarious liability is the employer's control over its employees and the benefit the employer receives from its employees. But courts have not used respondeat superior as a basis for expanding an employer's liability for negligently hiring or retention. Instead, the tort developed from the fellow servant rule, which imposes a duty on employers to select employees who will not endanger fellow employees by their presence on the job.(4) At common law, the fellow servant rule required an employer to provide its employees with a safe place to work.(5) For example, in an 1885 case, an intoxicated train engineer accidentally backed a train over another employee and killed him. The court held that an employer may be liable for negligently retaining an incompetent employee if the employer fails to discover and correct the employee's vicious habits.(6) In other early cases, the courts held that fellow servants could recover if they could prove that the employer had been guilty of negligence either in selecting or retaining the employee. The first cases involved actions by the employees that were within the scope of their employment, but later courts began developing new tests that broadened grounds for an action. One of the first cases to discuss a more modern view was Ballard's Administratrix v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, and the discussion came in a dissent.(7) While the majority adhered to the respondeat superior approach and refused to hold the employer liable for an employee's prank that was outside the scope of employment, Justice Nunn in dissent stated that the employer knew its employee was reckless and dangerous but nevertheless kept him in its employ, therefore the fellow employee had a valid cause of action, although the employee's actions were not within the scope of his employment. This modern view stresses the duty both to hire and to retain competent employees. For example, the direct employer liability doctrine expanded to include a duty to reasonable care for the safety of members of the general public.'3 This view is recognized by a majority of jurisdictions. Section 213 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency states that a person conducting an activity through servants or other agents is subject to liability for harm resulting from his conduct if he is negligent or reckless . . . in the employment of improper persons or instrumentalities in work involving risk of harm to others. Today the main issues in negligent employment cases involve several considerations: (1) the level of care the employer must exercise in making personnel decisions; (2) the persons to whom the duty is owed; (3) the employee characteristic that amounts to incompetence or unfitness, and the evidence that may be used to establish the existence of this trait; (4) the necessary connection between the employee's alleged incompetence or unfitness and the plaintiff's injury; and (5) the nexus between the employer and the plaintiff. …" @default.
• W314969096 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W314969096 creator A5024026438 @default.
• W314969096 date "1996-07-01" @default.
• W314969096 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W314969096 title "Negligent Retention of Employees: An Expanding Doctrine" @default.
• W314969096 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W314969096 type Work @default.
• W314969096 sameAs 314969096 @default.
• W314969096 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W314969096 countsByYear W3149690962012 @default.
• W314969096 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W314969096 hasAuthorship W314969096A5024026438 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C153180980 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C2775914699 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C2777363581 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C77088390 @default.
• W314969096 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C121955636 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C144133560 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C153180980 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C17744445 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C199539241 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C200635333 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C2775914699 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C2776211767 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C2777363581 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C2777834853 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C2779103253 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C41008148 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C77088390 @default.
• W314969096 hasConceptScore W314969096C97460637 @default.
• W314969096 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W314969096 hasLocation W3149690961 @default.
• W314969096 hasOpenAccess W314969096 @default.
• W314969096 hasPrimaryLocation W3149690961 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W132848703 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W150418921 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W1535826803 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W1538909404 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W1542620761 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W1873081466 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W2015771383 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W20542445 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W2067343102 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W2074833967 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W2194098740 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W254030098 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W2603237598 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W2896206267 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W293057951 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W3024759561 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W330215050 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W35526007 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W83894844 @default.
• W314969096 hasRelatedWork W2188115264 @default.
• W314969096 hasVolume "63" @default.
• W314969096 isParatext "false" @default.
• W314969096 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W314969096 magId "314969096" @default.
• W314969096 workType "article" @default.