Opinion ID: 2180320
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Status of Negligent Supervision in Maine

Text: [¶ 18] Fortin asserts that we adopted the tort of negligent supervision in McLain v. Training & Development Corp., 572 A.2d 494 (Me.1990). In that case, McLain, a former student of a Job Corps training program, sued the program for the tortious conduct of one of its employees. Id. at 496. McLain's claims against the program were based on both the program's direct negligence in its hiring and supervision of the employee and its vicarious liability for the negligence and assault and battery committed by the employee. Id. We affirmed the judgment entered against the program, concluding that the jury could have found the program liable based on either of McLain's theories of liability: On the record before it the jury could rationally find that TDC had failed to supervise [the employee] properly.... Also, the jury could rationally find from the evidence that [the employee's] employment made possible the tortious assault and battery he imposed upon McLain, rendering TDC liable for all of McLain's injuries at [the employee's] hand, on the alternative theory of vicarious liability. Id. at 498. [¶ 19] As the Diocese points out, it is unclear whether McLain was decided on a theory of negligent supervision or respondeat superior. We were not called on in McLain, however, to answer the question of whether an employer's negligent supervision of an employee violates a duty the employer owes to those harmed by the employee. See id. On five occasions since McLain was decided, however, we have made it clear that we have not yet adopted or rejected a cause of action for negligent supervision by an employer. [3] See Korhonen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 ME 77, ¶ 12 n. 4, 827 A.2d 833, 837 (Negligent supervision is generally considered in the context of the duty an employer might owe for the conduct of an employee, and is a duty that we have not previously recognized.); see also Mahar v. StoneWood Transp., 2003 ME 63, ¶ 10, 823 A.2d 540, 543; Napieralski, 2002 ME 108, ¶ 6, 802 A.2d at 392; Hinkley v. Penobscot Valley Hosp., 2002 ME 70, ¶ 16, 794 A.2d 643, 647; Swanson, 1997 ME 63, ¶ 9, 692 A.2d at 443-44. [¶ 20] As aptly stated by Judge Woodcock of the U.S. District Court, [t]he best [that one] can say is the Law Court has implied it will rule on whether the tort exists if the proper set of facts comes before it. Gomes v. Univ. of Me. Sys., 304 F.Supp.2d 117, 133 (D.Me.2004).