Opinion ID: 2386462
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Negligent Supervision Claim against Safeway

Text: A related but separate claim is that Safeway was negligent in failing to prevent the harm done to Octavia by Hunter's alleged conduct. Under this negligent supervision theory, [10] Safeway's duty to supervise is not merely to be judged by the concept of respondeat superior. Murphy v. Army Distaff Foundation, 458 A.2d at 63. Rather, [appellant's claim] is an allegation of direct negligence, asserting that Safeway had a `duty [which] extends even to activities which . . . [sometimes] are outside the scope of employment.' Id. (citation omitted). To invoke this theory of liability it is incumbent upon a party to show that an employer knew or should have known its employee behaved in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner, and that the employer, armed with that actual or constructive knowledge, failed to adequately supervise the employee. Giles v. Shell Oil Corp., 487 A.2d at 613. [11] Even though appellant is entitled to all reasonable inferences in her favor, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it determined that no facts would warrant an inference of negligent supervision against Safeway. The only evidence arguably supporting the theory that Safeway was negligent in supervising Hunter was that a Safeway employee may have been present at the time of the alleged assault. However, as the trial court pointed out, there was no evidence indicating that this employee had either the power to control Hunter's conduct or the opportunity to alert someone who did have that power in time to prevent the harm. Nor was there any other evidence, as the trial court said in its order, that a person with supervisory authority over Hunter saw what occurred or [had] an opportunity to stop it. There was thus no basis for an inference of negligent supervision against Safeway, and summary judgment was properly entered in its favor.