Issue: Under the law of Vermont, when will courts find an employer liable for the misconduct of its employee under a theory of negligent supervision?
| Area of Law: | Employee Law, Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | Negligent supervision; Foreseeability; Harm |
| Jurisdiction: | Vermont |
| Cited Cases: | 611 N.Y.S.2d 347; 169 Vt. 118 |
| Cited Statutes: | Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 |
| Date: | 12/01/2009 |
The Vermont Supreme Court has adopted the cause of action of negligent supervision of an employee or agent based on Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213.*FN1 See Turner v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Vt., 2009 VT 101, at ¶ 51 n.10 (Vt. Oct. 9, 2009) (citing Brueckner v. Norwich University, 169 Vt. 118, 126, 730 A.2d 1086, 1093 (1999). This Restatement section provides: “A person conducting an activity through servants or other agents is subject to liability for harm resulting from his conduct if he is negligent or reckless … (c) in the supervision of the activity….
As a general rule, foreseeability of harm to plaintiff is also relevant to the court’s imposition of a duty. See Lexington Ins. Co. v. Rounds, 349 F. Supp. 2d 861, 866 (D. Vt. 2004) (“As a general rule, foreseeability of harm is relevant to whether there was a legally cognizable duty owed to plaintiff.”). Because of this foreseeability factor, there is a suggestion in some cases that unless the employer had knowledge or reason to know of the employee’s potential to cause harm, there is no duty to supervise the abuser so as to prevent the injury.*FN2 See Kennedy v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Vt., Inc., 921 F. Supp. 231, 234 (D. Vt. 1996). In Kennedy, the court said:
The fact that the Diocese may control some activities of its priests does not, of […]
margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:463.5pt’>