Block peril for deep pockets
Idaho companies have asked the Legislature to block suits
against them for actions of former employees. The Legislature should waste no time in
doing so.
Imagine this:
XYZ Company hires a new employee. The employee works for six months and
then leaves the company—an unremarkable event, something that happens every day all
over the country.
Months after leaving his job, the former employee goes out and commits a
crime upon someone he or she met during his employment at XYZ.
The victim sues XYZ for millions in damages, alleging that XYZ should have
known the former employee posed a danger to its customers.
The victim maintains that responsibility for the crime belongs to XYZ
Company because if it had not hired the perpetrator, the victim would never have met him.
A scenario similar to this occurred in Boise a couple of years ago. The
Idaho Supreme Court said the employer could be held liable for a crime by a former
worker—a physical therapist who molested a boy he first met when the boy was a
patient at the hospital.
When the high court’s decision came down, a collective corporate gasp
of dismay emanated from board rooms around the state.
Rightly so. It’s the peril of deep pockets that make large
companies’ targets for all kinds of lawsuits. But a lawsuit based on the actions of a
former employee? This was too much.
The idea that independent acts of individuals are the responsibility of
the companies that employ them is absurd. The responsibility for criminal acts is the
perpetrator’s, not a former employer’s.
