Negligent Supervision or Hiring as a Cause of Action in Connecticut

Connecticut recognizes negligent supervision and negligent hiring as causes of action.

Negligent Supervision

In a negligent supervision action, the plaintiff alleges that their injury was caused by the employer’s failure to properly supervise an employee whom they had a duty to oversee. To establish a claim of negligent supervision, the plaintiff must prove that the employer had a duty to supervise the employee in question and that the lack of supervision directly contributed to the harm suffered.

Elements of a Negligent Supervision Claim

For a plaintiff to succeed in a negligent supervision case, they need to prove certain conditions:

Duty to Supervise: It is crucial to establish that the employer had a legal obligation to supervise the employee and ensure a safe working environment.

Failure to Supervise: The plaintiff needs to prove that the employer did not adequately supervise the employee in question, or that they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm.

Foreseeability: A plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer reasonably should have foreseen the employee’s potential for harmful behavior.

Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered an injury or harm as a result of the employer’s failure to fulfill their duty of care.

The cases, Seguro v. Cummiskey, 82 Conn. App. 186 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) and Robles v. W. Ave. Dental, P.C., 197 A.3d 484 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018), explain elements of negligent supervision.  

Negligent Hiring

Negligent hiring refers to a situation where an employer fails to exercise reasonable care in the selection of employees, thereby hiring someone who poses a foreseeable risk to others. To bring a successful negligent hiring claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that their injury directly resulted from the employer’s failure to exercise due diligence during the hiring process.

Elements of a Negligent Hiring Claim

For a plaintiff to succeed in a negligent hiring case, they need to prove certain elements:

Duty of Care: The plaintiff must establish that the employer owed a duty of care to the third party or injured party. This duty would involve the employer exercising reasonable care in the hiring process and ensuring that the employee is fit and competent to perform the required job duties.

Breach of Duty: The plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the employer breached their duty of care by negligently hiring an unfit employee. This can be shown by presenting evidence that the employer failed to conduct proper background checks, neglected to verify qualifications, or overlooked red flags during the hiring process.

Unfit Employee: The plaintiff must prove that the hired employee was unfit or incompetent to perform the services of employment. This can be established by showing evidence of the employee’s inadequate training, lack of qualifications, history of misconduct, or any other factors that indicate their inability to perform their duties safely and effectively.

Causation: The plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the employer’s negligent hiring and the injuries suffered by the third party. This requires demonstrating that the harm inflicted by the employee would not have occurred if the employer had exercised reasonable care during the hiring process.

Injury or Damages: The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm or damages as a result of the employee’s actions. This can include physical injuries, emotional distress, financial losses, or any other negative consequences resulting from the officer’s misconduct or incompetence.

The case, Shore v. Stonington, 187 Conn. 147 (1982), explains elements of negligent hiring.  

Independent Liability

It is essential to establish that the claim of negligent hiring is independent of the theory of respondeat superior, which holds employers vicariously liable for the actions of their employees during the course of employment. Negligent hiring claims focus specifically on the employer’s own negligence in selecting an unfit employee, regardless of whether the employee’s actions occurred within the scope of their employment.

The Role of Foreseeability in Negligent Supervision and Hiring Claims

Foreseeability plays a significant role in determining liability in negligent supervision and hiring cases. The question is whether an ordinary person, in the employer’s position, would have anticipated the likelihood of harm given the information they knew or should have known. It is not necessary to prove that the employer specifically predicted the exact injury that occurred but rather whether the general nature of the harm suffered was likely.

Employer Liability: Notice of Employee’s Propensity for Harmful Behavior

It is important to note that employers cannot be held liable for alleged negligent hiring, training, supervision, or retention of an employee accused of wrongful conduct unless they had notice of the employee’s propensity for the type of behavior that caused harm to the plaintiff. In other words, if the employer had no reasonable way of knowing about the employee’s potential for harmful actions, they may not be held responsible.

Conclusion

Negligent supervision and negligent hiring are legal causes of action that empower individuals to seek justice when they have been harmed due to an employer’s failure to exercise reasonable care in the oversight or hiring of employees. By understanding the elements required to establish a claim and the significance of foreseeability, individuals can better protect their rights and ensure a safer working environment. If you believe you have been a victim of negligent supervision or hiring, it is important to consult with a qualified attorney to assess the merits of your case and explore your legal options.