Opinion ID: 2342641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Direct Liability Negligent Supervision

Text: Norwich argues it was not liable to plaintiff for negligent supervision of the students in the cadre because it owed no duty of care to plaintiff. Norwich's claim is premised on the fact that the hazing in question came at the hands of fellow students. It cites Smith v. Day, 148 Vt. 595, 599, 538 A.2d 157, 159 (1987), for the proposition that Norwich owed no duty to control the actions of Norwich students for the protection of plaintiff. We disagree because, unlike the Smith case, Norwich specifically charged cadre members with indoctrinating and orienting plaintiff. A principal may, in addition to being found vicariously liable for tortious conduct of its agents, be found directly liable for damages resulting from negligent supervision of its agents' activities. See Trahan-Laroche v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc., 139 N.H. 483, 657 A.2d 417, 419 (1995); Mainella v. Staff Builders Indus. Servs., Inc., 608 A.2d 1141, 1145 (R.I.1992) (direct liability for negligent supervision of employees or agents constitutes an entirely separate and distinct type of liability from vicarious liability under respondeat superior); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213. Norwich's claim that it owed no duty to plaintiff under the circumstances of this case fails under these established principles. Under the Restatement, [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 supervision of the activity. Id. According to the Restatement's drafters, § 213 is a special application of the general rules stated in the Restatement of Torts .... Liability exists only if all the requirements of an action of tort for negligence exist. Id. cmt. a. In this instance, the cadre members, and by extension Norwich, owed plaintiff at minimum the duty to use reasonable care to avoid harming him. One who engages in an enterprise is under a duty to anticipate and to guard against the human traits of his employees which unless regulated are likely to harm others. He is likewise required to make such reasonable regulations as the size or complexity of his business may require. Id. cmt. g. Norwich, therefore, owed plaintiff a duty of reasonable care in the control and supervision of the cadre. In the instant case, the court correctly instructed the jury that Norwich owed plaintiff a duty to use reasonable care in avoiding harm to plaintiff, and the evidence in the record fairly and reasonably supports the jury's finding of liability.