Suing Employers for Harm Caused by Employees

Companies oftentimes need to employ a variety of workers in order to conduct their business.  This includes independent contractors, employees, and workers that are harder to classify.  During the course of their employment, workers may cause personal injuries to others through their negligence or other harmful acts.  Oftentimes employers (as well as the workers themselves) can be sued to recover damages for such personal injuries.  Nevertheless, suing employers for harm caused by employees is only possible in certain situations, and litigants should keep a few things in mind when suing an employer for injuries caused by a worker.

Independent Contractor or Employee

It is important to note at the beginning that while suing employers for harm caused by employees is possible, it is much more difficult to sue employers for harm caused by independent contractors.  Many of us intrinsically know the difference between an employee and independent contractor through our past experiences.  An independent contract is ordinarily not a regular worker at a company, and they usually have independence in how they perform their work.  Indeed, independent contractors often have flexibility with the tools, methods, time, and strategies used to accomplish a given task for an employer.

An employee on the other hand is oftentimes a regular worker of a company.  They usually are supervised directly by the employer and need to perform their work according to expectations established by an employee.  It is important to note that simply calling a worker an “employee” or “independent contractor” will generally not shield an employer from harm caused by someone.  Courts will look to a variety of factors to make an independent assessment about whether a worker is an employee so that liability should flow to the employer.

Scope of the Employment

Once it is determined that a worker is indeed an employee, suing employers for harm caused by employees through vicarious liability is only possible if the employee was acting within the scope of employment when the harm was caused.  The scope of an employee’s employment is generally defined as the regular work activities that an employee takes in order to serve the ends of the employer.  However, if employees are not acting within the scope of employment, and are serving their own ends, liability will generally not attach to the employer.

Sometimes it is difficult to tell if in a series of acts an employee is acting within the scope of his employment or not.  Courts oftentimes evaluate such situations by determining if the employee was engaged in a “frolic” or a “detour” when the injury occurred.  If an employee makes a minor deviation from their normal work duties when the harm occurred, then liability will likely attach to the employer.  However, if the employees took major deviations from work duties when the harm occurred, liability will likely not flow to the employer.  Courts will evaluate all of the circumstances to determine if the employee was operating within the scope of employment when the harm occurred.

Non-Delegable Duty

Another important consideration to keep in mind when suing employers for harm caused by employees is the non-delegable duty doctrine.  Even though entities generally cannot be liable for the actions of independent contractors, companies can still be liable if the acts involve a non-delegable duty.  A non-delegable duty is a duty that it so important to health and wellness that entities cannot delegate these acts to someone else and they will be held liable for harm that falls under the duty.  For instance. If a landowner hires a contractor to perform blasting work on its property, it might be found that the duty to maintain safety on the property is nondelegable such that the landowner is liable for the negligence of the contractor.  The law of non-delegable duties is very fact-specific, so it is important to speak with a skilled personal injury lawyer in your jurisdiction to see if your particular situation may involve a non-delegable duty.

Negligent Hiring and Supervision

Another way of suing employers for harm caused by employees is for alleging that the employer could have done more to prevent the harm from occurring in the first place.  Negligent hiring usually involves claiming that an employer did not properly review the credentials of a worker when the employer decided to hire that person for the job.  This could either be due to a lack of skills, a propensity to cause harm, or other issues that an employer should have known which may have made the worker unsuitable for the job that they had when the harm was caused.

Negligent supervision involves omissions of the employer once the worker has been hired.  In a negligent supervision claims, parties assert that the employee did not properly oversee or manage the worker, and if they would have used more care in supervising the worker, the harm would not have resulted.  These causes of action do not attach the employees acts to the employer, but permit recoveries on another theory of recovery.

The Rothman Law Firm is experienced with all types of personal injury claims, and we understand how to attach liability to employers for the harms caused by employees.  If you are looking for an experienced New York and New Jersey personal injury attorney to handle your case, please feel free to contact The Rothman Law Firm to request a free consultation.