You Be the Judge - Chuck Case

You Be the Judge #2

Facts:

Chuck is an anger management counselor who is currently employed by XYZ Counseling Agency. Not so long ago, Chuck had an incident occur in which he placed his hands on a client when he grabbed this person and proceeded to shake them. Then more recently, Chuck got frustrated with a client named Wilbur, and Chuck physical beat up Wilbur. XYZ Counseling Agency has a strict policy in place against violence in the workforce or workplace. XYZ Counseling Agency's violence policy has strict punishment for employees that violate this policy. In the past XYZ Counseling Agency have had offenders of the policy but none that serious where the result was termination. Several years ago, 5 to be exact, Chuck was terminated from his position at another agency for hitting a client. Wilbur, the most recent victim of Chuck, has filed suit against the XYZ Counseling Agency.

Issue:

Is XYZ Counseling Agency liable for the actions of Chuck? Or is the suit filed against the wrong plaintiff?

Law/Analysis:

With this case, you have to look at this in two different lights. Depending on where this occurred could make all the difference on which way a judge would rule on this. First, you have to look at why should this company be held liable for this employee. This company either failed to conduct a background check or did conduct one and either chose to ignore or didn't see that Chuck has had an issue in the past with this very same situation. If they ignored this information, then they knowingly placed this employee in a situation that they knew could have a bad outcome. This would then give Wilbur the legal right to filing a "negligent hiring" suit. In addition, because only weeks prior to this instance taking place with Wilbur, Chuck was involved in another similar situation, which then opens the door to "negligent retention." Also this case brings into question "Strict Liability," which states that liability can be assessed on defendants without regard to fault and applies to "abnormally dangerous activities." With Chuck's past actions, this case definitely qualifies it to be "abnormally dangerous." Wilbur could also file suit against XYZ Corporation for actual damage which states that actual damage including compensation for personal injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and other injuries caused by the defendant's actions and misconduct.

Now on the other hand, can the company be held liable for something they may not have been made aware of, for example, what if the prior conduct information was withheld from XYZ Counseling Agency. However, if XYZ Counseling Agency knew but they took proper steps to avoid this from happening with another client why should they