Yunker V. Honeywell
Chapter/Case Questions:
1. Chapter 12, Yunker V. Honeywell, pg 456-459, Questions 1-4
1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra, 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra, 2011). The court meant that “negligent hiring and negligent retention do not rely on the scope of employment but address risks created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).
2. The court rejected the negligent supervision claim because they agreed it was not a viable theory of recovery. They stated that, “Because Landin was neither on Honeywell’s premises nor using Honeywell’s chattels when he shot Nesser” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457), that therefore made the claim not viable.
3. The court in this case rejected the negligent hiring claim because of previous case law. In the Ponticas case of 1983, the court defined negligent hiring as, “predicated on the negligence of an employer in placing a person with knowing propensities, or propensities which should have been discovered by reasonable investigation, in an employment position in which, because of the circumstances of the employment, it should have been foreseeable that the hired individual posed a threat of injury to others” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457). “Because of this definition under Ponticas, Honeywell argued that it should not be held liable for negligent hiring because, unlike providing a dangerous resident manager with a passkey, Landin’s employment did not enable him to commit the act of violence against Nesser” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).
4. The court allowed for the negligent retention issue to go to trial because of some evidence found on the record, which showed a number of
1. Chapter 12, Yunker V. Honeywell, pg 456-459, Questions 1-4
1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra, 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra, 2011). The court meant that “negligent hiring and negligent retention do not rely on the scope of employment but address risks created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).
2. The court rejected the negligent supervision claim because they agreed it was not a viable theory of recovery. They stated that, “Because Landin was neither on Honeywell’s premises nor using Honeywell’s chattels when he shot Nesser” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457), that therefore made the claim not viable.
3. The court in this case rejected the negligent hiring claim because of previous case law. In the Ponticas case of 1983, the court defined negligent hiring as, “predicated on the negligence of an employer in placing a person with knowing propensities, or propensities which should have been discovered by reasonable investigation, in an employment position in which, because of the circumstances of the employment, it should have been foreseeable that the hired individual posed a threat of injury to others” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457). “Because of this definition under Ponticas, Honeywell argued that it should not be held liable for negligent hiring because, unlike providing a dangerous resident manager with a passkey, Landin’s employment did not enable him to commit the act of violence against Nesser” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).
4. The court allowed for the negligent retention issue to go to trial because of some evidence found on the record, which showed a number of
References: OSHA. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (2011). How to file a complaint with OSHA. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/complain.html