(5).
In the majority of successful negligent hiring/retention court cases.
the nature of the relationship between customer plaintiff and business.
defendant seems to drive the outcome. In cases in which plaintiffs have.
recovered, there appears to be a higher degree of duty or care required.
between business and it's customers because of the nature of the product or.
service provided.
Fundamental to a negligence action is the existence of a duty owed by.
the defendant to the plaintiff ( See Bidar Vs. AM-FAC, Inc., 66Haw. 547,.
551; 669 P. 2d 54, 158 {1983}.) A defendant owes a duty of care only to.
those who are foreseeably endangered by the conduct and only with respect.
to those risks or hazards whose likelihood made the conduct unreasonably.
dangerous. ( See Hulsman vs. Hemmeter Development Corp., 65 Haw. 58, 68,.
647 P. 2d 713, 720 { 1982}.).
Therefore, duty under the negligent hiring theory depends on.
forseeability, that is, "Whether the risk of harm from the dangerous.
employee to a person.was reasonably forseeable as a result of.
employment."( See Di Cosala vs. Kay, 91 N.J. 159, 450A. 2d at 516 {1982}.).
Some examples of a higher duty of care include Landlord/tenant.
relationships, common carriers (railroads, airlines, ship lines), hospitals,.
and other patient care facilities and taxi services.
Often when a negligent hiring complaint is initiated a simultaneous.
allegation is made of negligent retention. Negligent hiring allegations.
imply a preliminary error in terms of the hiring process ( See Ponticas vs.
KMS Investments, 331 N.W. 2d, 907 {1983}.) This means that the employer.
should have known before hiring an individual that the person was unfit for.
employment. Negligent retention is an after-the-fact consideration (See.
Cherry vs. Kelly services Inc., 2d 463 {1984}) applying to the instances in.
which the employer becomes aware of the employee's unfitness after hiring.
him or her. Here the employer has an obligation to initiate an action to.