Work negligence covers some of the causes of action in the emerging lawsuit in which the employer is responsible for the painful actions of the employee because the employer is negligent in giving the employee the ability to engage in a particular action. Act. Four basic causes of action may arise from such scenarios: negligence negligence , negligent retention , negligent control and negligent training . Although job negligence may overlap with careless responsibilities and representative responsibilities, the concept is the basis of different obligations.
Video Negligence in employment
Negligence
As with all claims of negligence, the plaintiff must prove four elements:
- That the accused (in this case, the employer) owe them a duty;
- That this job is being violated;
- That the plaintiff was injured for the offense; (see Cause (law); Cause in English law) and
- Injury to the plaintiff is a possible consequence of the breach.
In order for such duty to exist, the injury to the plaintiff must be "predictable", which means, for example, that the type of work should be one where an unworthy employee can cause harm from the kind that occurs, and the claimant is the type of person who considers the danger "predictable consequences".
Maps Negligence in employment
Negligent negligence
Negligence neglect can be found where the employee has a reputation or record that shows a tendency to abuse the type of authority granted by the employer, and this record will be easily found by the employer, asking the employer to do 'due diligence'. For example, a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace may have a cause for an act of negligent hiring on the part of her employer if she can show that the employer is aware of the termination of harassment from the previous position for the same behavior.
Precautions for looting expulsion
In the example of sexual harassment described above, the employer may be held accountable for being negligent in hiring if the offender has a history of previous abuse. This is because employers have an obligation to their employees and others who will relate to them to provide a safe and productive working environment.
One precaution to hire a negligent person is to conduct a reasonable investigation of potential employees. This may include conducting interviews, verifying work and educational history, checking references and conducting background checks on all applicants who have received conditional lease offers, and if adverse judgments are found, to refuse the job for the applicant.
Note that only doing a criminal background check on the applicant may not be an adequate investigation. In Minnesota, for example, such examinations were determined not sufficiently by the court at Ponticas v. K.M.S. Investment, 331 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. 1983). This does not guarantee that employers will not be liable, but this will indicate that employers are using diligent searches to screen potential offenders from the workplace, and will assist companies in showing that they are taking reasonable action in recruitment. It is also important to note that, in the United States, background checks for job applicants are subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (2003). If an adverse assessment is found on the job screen, the applicant has the right to refute the report.
Inattentive retention, supervision, and training
Negligence of negligence occurs when a party fails to remove an employee from an authority or responsibility position after it becomes clear that the employee is actually abusing authority or responsibility in a manner that poses a danger to others.
Careless supervision is closely related, because it occurs where a party fails to monitor or control an employee's actions. Careless retention or supervision variation is negligent training, which arises where employee employee training fails to prevent employees from engaging in actions that injure the plaintiff, or fail to recover the pattern of behavior that causes injury. Suitable for negligent retention often requests oversight or negligent training as an alternative theory, since employers who know inappropriate behavior should stop the employee, or take steps to punish that behavior and/or train the employee not to engage in the behavior..
Related docs
Careless neglect compared to
Reasonable neglect arises where the entrustor is held liable for negligence because they carelessly provide the officer with a malicious instrument, and the party entrusted causes injury to a third party with the instrument. If such a claim is filed against the employer, the employer will be liable if the officer's records are known, or will be easily found, to the employer. For example, if a bus company hires a driver who has a reckless driving record, which the company can learn through publicly available records, the company will be liable for ignoring the driver's negligence, the driver should be the cause of the accident.
Careless mastery is different from payroll, retention, supervision, and careless training in two important ways.
- First, careless neglect and related claims require the work itself from the tortfeasor that caused the injury, while the party may be held accountable for negligent neglect to anyone.
- Secondly, the employer may be held liable for negligent neglect, even without the provision of any harmful instruments to employees. However, where employers employ people who are not eligible to engage in the use of dangerous brokers, such as in the above example with a bus driver, the employer may be liable for both boring negligence and acceptance.
Responsibility replacement compared
The replacement liability is a separate theory of responsibility, stating that the employer is responsible for employee demands under agency theory, even if the employer does not make any mistakes. The principle is that the actions of a company agent are assumed, by law, to be the company's own action, provided that the tortfeasor acts in its work.
In contrast, each of the above negligence theories require actual proof of negligence on the part of the employer before injury occurs, for example when the employee is first employed.
Notes and references
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments