Court Opinion

ID: 9628183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:10:24.089029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:59.156504
License: Public Domain

HOWARD, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority holds that an employer can be held liable for damages for the criminal acts of a former employee committed after the employment has terminated. It is my opinion that this holding is erroneous. Furthermore, even under this holding, the facts do not support a reversal.
An employer may be liable to a third person for the employer’s negligence in hiring or retaining an employee who is incompetent or unfit. Hersh v. Kentfield Builders, Inc., 385 Mich. 410, 189 N.W.2d 286 (1971); 53 Am.Jur.2d Master and Servant, Secs. 422, 436 et seq., and See Annot. 48 A.L.R.Sd 359 “Employer’s Knowledge of Employee’s Past Criminal Record As Affecting Liability For Employee’s Tortious Conduct”, Prosser, Law of Torts, 4th Ed. states at 175:
*383“There are other situations in which the defendant will be held liable because his affirmative conduct has greatly increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff through the criminal acts of others. The defendant may bring the plaintiff into contact with individuals of known criminal tendencies, as for example, by hiring them, under conditions in which opportunity for crime is afforded.”
In support of this statement, Prosser cites the following cases: Hall v. Smathers, 240 N.Y. 486, 148 N.E. 654 (1925); Kendall v. Gore Properties, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 378, 236 F.2d 673 (1956); Hipp v. Hospital Authority of City of Marietta, 104 Ga.App. 174, 121 S.E.2d 273 (1961); Georgia Bowling Enterprises v. Robbins, 103 Ga.App. 286, 119 S.E.2d 52 (1961); De la Bere v. Pearson, Ltd., 1 K.B. 280 (1908). In all these cases the injury occurred during the employer-employee relationship, except for the case of De la Bere v. Pearson, Ltd., supra, which involves a financial adviser who agreed to recommend a “good stockbroker” and thus assumed a duty to use due care.
The basis for holding the employer independently liable for hiring or retaining an unfit employee has been said to be much the same as that for harm resulting from harboring dangerous and vicious animals. Porter v. Grennan Bakeries, Inc., 219 Minn. 14, 16 N.W.2d 906 (1944); Dean v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 41 Minn. 360, 43 N.W. 54 (1889). As was said by the court in Dean v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., supra:
“ * * * It [the depot company] had no more right, therefore, to knowingly and advisedly employ, or allow to be employed, in [the] depot building, a dangerous and vicious man, than it would have to keep and harbor a dangerous and savage dog or other animal, or to permit a pitfall or trap into which a passenger might step as he was passing to or from his train.” 43 N.W. at 55.
One cannot be liable for “harboring” an incompetent or unfit employee if that employee is no longer employed. Appellant’s duty to the appellee, which was the duty not to have an unfit employee, ended when the master-servant relationship was terminated.
The majority, however, chooses to ignore the legal relationship between the appellee and the wrongdoer and instead rests upon a statement from Prosser, Sec. 302 B; Restatement (Second) of Torts and Central Alarm of Tucson v. Ganem, supra.
The applicability of the Ganem case escapes me. The question there was whether the criminal act of a third person was an intervening cause. The original negligence of the alleged wrongdoer was assumed for the purposes of the opinion. It was a case dealing with foreseeability. We are not concerned here with mere foreseeability. In respect to the law of negligence foreseeability should not be confused with duty. Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 390 N.Y. S.2d 393, 358 N.E.2d 1019 (1976) and see Goldberg v. Housing Authority of City of Newark, 38 N.J. 578, 186 A.2d 291 (1962). The principle expressed in Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) is applicable to determine the scope of the duty only after it has been determined there is a duty.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 302 B upon which the majority also relies, states that the actor is required to take precautions: 1
“D. Where the actor has brought into contact or association with the other a person whom the actor knows or should know to be peculiarly likely to commit intentional misconduct, under circumstances which afford a peculiar opportunity or temptation for such misconduct.”
It then gives the following illustrations:
“9. A is the landlord of an apartment house. He employs B as a janitor, knowing that B is a man of violent and uncontrollable temper, and on past occasions has attacked those who argue with him. C, a tenant of one of the apartments, *384complains to B of inadequate heat. B becomes furiously angry and attacks C, seriously injuring him. A may be found to be negligent toward C.
10. A, a young girl, is a passenger on B Railroad. She falls asleep and is carried beyond her station. The conductor puts her off of the train in an unprotected spot, immediately adjacent to a ‘jungle’ in which hoboes are camped. It is notorious that many of these hoboes are criminals, or men of rough and violent character. A is raped by one of the hoboes. B Railroad may be found to be negligent toward A.”
In both of these foregoing examples the injury occurs during the period when the victim is being exposed to a risk by the actor. Not at some later time. This is crucial. In example 9 the actor has control or the right to control the wrongdoer and in example 10 the actor assumes control over the victim. In either instance, it seems only fair to say that there is a duty of due care upon the actor. But does that duty exist when the defendant has control of neither the wrongdoer, nor the victim?
Although Sec. 302 B of the Restatement makes it clear that its examples are not meant to be exclusive, it is worth noting that in the examples given as imposing liability we find (1) the actor has contractually, or otherwise, assumed a duty to protect the victim; (2) the actor has a duty to protect the victim because of the legal relationship of the parties; (3) the actor has the control or the right to control either the wrongdoer or the victim; (4) the actor has possession or control of the instrumentality which causes the injury. None of these are present here.
Comment e of the Restatement states that the actor can be liable:
“C. Where the actor’s affirmative act is intended or likely to defeat a protection which the other has placed around his person or property for the purpose of guarding them from intentional interference. This includes situations where the actor is privileged to resume such a protection, but fails to take reasonable steps to replace it or to provide a substitute.”
This appears to be the basis for the majority opinion although it is not clearly enunciated. The difficulty with this theory as applied to the facts adduced at the motion to dismiss, is that no one has shown of what the wrongdoer’s past criminal conduct consisted. Suppose he had a history of conviction for child molestation? Would knowledge of this past conduct have made it foreseeable that he would commit a burglary? I do not believe that there can be negligence unless there is some connection between the past criminal conduct and the conduct which caused the loss. There was no such proof here and the burden was on the plaintiff to show such proof was available. Pendleton v. Cilley, 118 Ariz. 84, 574 P.2d 1303 (1978).

. Prosser, upon which the majority also relies, generally follows the Restatement and should be read in the entirety, pp. 174-176.