A PPO hires a guard without conducting the BSIS-mandated background check. The guard later commits an assault against a patron. Beyond respondeat superior, the PPO may face liability under which independent theory?
Explanation
California recognizes negligent hiring, retention, and supervision as independent tort theories distinct from respondeat superior. They focus on the employer's own breach: failing to conduct reasonable pre-employment investigation given the foreseeable risks, or retaining/failing to supervise an employee whose dangerous propensities became known. Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038 articulates the duty. For security, where guards may detain, use force, and access vulnerable people, the standard is heightened. BSIS background-check failures are strong evidence of breach. Strict products liability (a), antitrust (c), and securities fraud (d) are unrelated theories.
Law Reference: California negligent-hiring doctrine; Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.
Related questions on this topic
- Penal Code §240 defines assault as an unlawful attempt, coupled with present ability, to commit a violent injury on another person. For a guard, which scenario most clearly meets all assault elements?
- A security guard observes a person who has been previously warned, in writing, not to return to a posted business property. The person re-enters the premises. Under PC §602(o) and related subdivisions, the guard's legal posture is:
- Under respondeat superior and BPC §7583.39, a licensed PPO (private patrol operator) is generally liable for its employee guard's torts committed:
- A patron sues a guard under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (federal civil rights statute) alleging a Fourth Amendment violation. The threshold issue for most private-security cases is:
- California's Bane Act (Civil Code §52.1) differs from federal §1983 in that the Bane Act:
- A guard, in front of other shoppers, loudly accuses a customer of theft. Investigation reveals the customer was innocent. Civil Code §§44-46 most directly support which claim?
Last reviewed: · editorial process