Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc. 

Please read each passage below, I need a few sentences in response to each part. Please use at least one source. Please cite the reference(s) properly. Part 1 and 2 can be on the same word document, however, please keep them separate by labeling them. 

Part 1

Yes!  I absolutely agree!  You made some great points and I appreciate it.  It is important for an employer to take care and hire competent, capable, trained individuals, suitable for the job in question.  If an employer reasonably knew, or reasonably should have known, or could have reasonably discovered potential risk for harm, then the employer is liable of Negligent hiring, as this was their sole responsibility, (Seaquist, 2012).  My job hired a mentally unhealthy supervisor and she caused a lot of upset everywhere.  She was great with her superiors, but very harsh on her subordinates, blaming and deflecting them.  This caused so many people to quit or go to therapy before she was let go.  I do believe this could have been reasonably discovered before she was hired, had they done their research.  Have you ever experienced something like this?  What would you have done in a situation like this?  Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Part 2

Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc. 

After reading about the court case, Malorney v B&L Motor Freight, I think that a business definitely has some duty to look into the background of their employee. While the company may have only cared about whether or not the driver had a motor vehicle record, they also could have prevented this tragedy with just a little bit of further research. If they did a criminal history background check, they would have seen that and I cannot imagine he would have been hired. If they did the background check and found he did drugs or something years in the past, then they may have still hired him so it is not like a record would have eliminated him automatically. One thing that is for certain is that “B&L did have a duty to check into Harbour’s background so as to ascertain whether he would be a fit employee” (Seaquist, 2012, 21.2) so if not just for their own diligence, they should have looked into it more.

Liability

Even though I agree that they should have looked into it for the sake of their business, I am on the fence about their liability. I do think that they could have easily prevented this by doing a criminal history check, but I also think that people make their own choices and just because he was hired and given a truck does not mean he had to rape someone. Then again, I feel that if a business hires a cashier with a documented history of violence against customers in previous jobs, it does seem like they are waiting for an issue to arise. I think it varies depending on the situation.

References

Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers. Zovio.