Protect Your Front Line Employees!
Prevent Situations from Escalating into Dangerous Events! ePanic Button is a PC-based incident notification system that gives everyone control and peace-of-mind. Request a Demo» Get a Free Trial»
Contact Us:
www.epanicbutton.com contact@epanicbutton.com 919-701-9707
DECISIONPOINT THE SITUATION (continued from page 1)
In addition to suing Drummond, Montague sued Nursefinders for negligence, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress under a theory of respondeat superior and also alleged that Nursefinders negligently trained Drummond with regard to workplace violence.
THE DECISION
The California Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of the claim against Nursefinders. As to the respondeat superior theory of liability, the Court stated that an employer can be held liable for a tort committed by an employee within the scope of his or her employment. The court acknowledged that employers can even be held liable for intentional or criminal torts, but stated that an employer “is not strictly liable for all actions of its employees during working hours.” For an employer to be liable for an intentional tort the act must have a causal connection to the employee’s wor k. In other words, the tort must be a generally foreseeable consequence of the employer’s business. In analyzing the case before it, the court found that while a work related dispute can create a causal nexus, an injury inflicted out of an employee’s pe
rsonal malice, not engendered by the employment, does
not create a causal nexus. The court could not find any work related connection to the poisoning. The court stated that simply because the employment brought Drummond and Montague together was not enough to create liability. Rather, the poisoning was highly unusual and startling and not related to the employee’s work duties or the employer’s business.
As to the negligent training claim, the court first assumed that employers have a duty to train employees in the avoidance of workplace violence. However, even assuming this duty, the court found that Montague could not prove her claim. While there was conflicting evidence on the adequacy of workplace violence training, the court found that there was simply no reasonable basis to conclude that Drummond’s act of criminally poisoning Montague was somehow the result of Nursefinders’ failure to make clear that such conduct was not considered an acceptable employee act. Accordingly, the court upheld the dismissal of the negligent training claim.
LEARNING AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS
This case upholds the basic proposition that employers cannot be held liable for unforeseeable criminal acts by employees. However, it also makes clear that simple straightforward workplace violence policies and training will go a long way toward shielding an employer from liability. While the court ultimately held in Nursefinders’ favor, the entire case may have been avoided in the first place had there been a clear record of employee training in
workplace violence Continued on page 25
. 24
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26