Opinion ID: 1665265
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Negligent Training and/or Supervision

Text: The parties agree that the following principles apply to Pritchett's claims of negligent training and/or supervision: In the master and servant relationship, the master is held responsible for his servant's incompetency when notice or knowledge, either actual or presumed, of such unfitness has been brought to him. Liability depends upon its being established by affirmative proof that such incompetency was actually known by the master or that, had he exercised due and proper diligence, he would have learned that which would charge him in the law with such knowledge. It is incumbent on the party charging negligence to show it by proper evidence. This may be done by showing specific acts of incompetency and bringing them home to the knowledge of the master, or by showing them to be of such nature, character, and frequency that the master, in the exercise of due care must have had them brought to his notice. While such specific acts of alleged incompetency cannot be shown to prove that the servant was negligent in doing or omitting to do the act complained of, it is proper, when repeated acts of carelessness and incompetency of a certain character are shown on the part of the servant to leave it to the jury whether they would have come to his knowledge, had he exercised ordinary care. Thompson v. Havard, 285 Ala. 718, 723, 235 So.2d 853, 858 (1970). See generally, Zielke v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 703 So.2d 354, 357-58 n. 1 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (After reviewing Alabama caselaw, we see no distinction between claims of wrongful supervision and claims of wrongful training.). Pritchett contends that Tisue had a history of recommending the use of wet gauze as appropriate patient eye-protection. (Pritchett's brief at 37.) In her statement of facts, Pritchett points out that, in deposition, Dr. Rumley testified: And I told Teresa [Pritchett] thatwell, Jeff Tisue suggested that we use a wet gauze, which is a medicalwhite medical gauze. I can't describe it any better. It was moistened in saline. And he suggested this would work and that they used it frequently around the eye because commonly these hard goggles didn't fit that well, particularly when you are working close to the eye. (Emphasis added.) The following occurred during Tisue's deposition: Q. [By Pritchett's attorney:] Wet gauze, is that something that you typically suggested that physicians utilize for the patient's eye safety when the doctor is working around the patient's eye? A. [By Tisue:] It's frequently used. . . . . Q. [By ICN's attorney:] Was the January 5, 2001 procedure involving [Pritchett], was that the first time that you had used the Nlite with a physician in their office? A. No. Q. How many times had you done that prior to that time? A. Oh, 30, 40. Q. Had you used wet gauze in any of those previous procedures  A. Sure. Q. As an eye protectant? Are you aware of any complaints of eye damage involving any of those procedures? A. I know of none. (Emphasis added.) In a case dealing with the alleged negligent entrustment of an automobile, in which the issue was whether the entrusted driver was incompetent, this Court said: Negligence is not synonymous with incompetency. The most competent may be negligent. Alabama City, G. & A. Ry. Co. v. Bessiere, 190 Ala. 59, 66 So. 805 [(1914)]; McGowin v. Howard, 246 Ala. 553, 21 So.2d 683 [(1945)]. But one who is habitually negligent may on that account be incompetent. McGowin v. Howard, 251 Ala. 204, 208, 36 So.2d 323, 325 (1948) (emphasis added). In light of the evidence indicating Tisue's role as a safety person, ICN's awareness of the safety issues involved with the use of the Nlite laser device, and the absence of any literature from ICN condoning the use of wet gauze as a protective device for the eyes during a procedure using the Nlite laser device, we conclude that Pritchett has presented substantial evidence indicating that, had ICN exercised due and proper diligence in either training or supervising Tisue, it would have learned of Tisue's practice on possibly 30 or 40 occasions of suggesting the use of wet gauze in lieu of the goggles or corneal shield provided by ICN with the laser device, contrary to ICN's instructions. Fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment [could] reasonably infer as much. West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment for ICN on Pritchett's negligent-training and/or supervision claim.