In addition, Kiesau's lawsuit named Buchanan County and its sheriff, Leonard Davis, as defendants. Making claims based on a legal theory about which you will read in this chapter, Kiesau contended that Davis and the county should face liability for negligent supervision of Bantz and for negligent retention of him as an employee. Davis and the county moved for summary judgment and sought dismissal of the claims made against them.
Evidence produced by Kiesau in opposition of the summary judgment motion revealed that Davis, who was Bantz's father-in-law, had received numerous complaints about Bantz's attitude and work habits. These complaints were lodged during a four-year period preceding Bantz's alteration and distribution of the photograph of Kiesau. For instance, a sergeant complained about Bantz's refusal to respond to a dispatch call and sent Davis a memo saying that "I am getting tired of people complaining that nothing ever happens to Deputy Bantz when a complaint is written up." As part of a recommendation that Davis terminate Bantz as a canine handler, a Lieutenant Furness mentioned Bantz's supposed lack of honesty, integrity, and sound judgment; his inability to work without supervision; and his failures to cooperate with other members of the Sheriff 's Department. Furness, who described Bantz as "a lawsuit waiting to happen even without a dog," later provided Davis a written complaint asserting that Bantz was the cause of turmoil and low morale in the department. In addition, the lieutenant informed Davis that Bantz was "arrogant in his knowledge that he can do anything and nothing will happen to him." Furness also expressed the supposed view of fellow deputies that Bantz's actions would eventually lead to a lawsuit. The evidence also included a statement by a Captain Hepke, who noted that the number of complaints lodged against Bantz was the most he had seen filed against a single deputy in his 22 years of law enforcement experience. Davis apparently took no action in response to these complaints about Bantz.The trial court granted summary judgment to Davis and the county and dismissed Kiesau's negligence claims against those defendants. Therefore, only the claims against Bantz were considered by the jury. Kiesau appealed the trial court's decision regarding her negligence claims against Davis and the county. As you read Chapter 7, consider these questions:
- What legal elements would Kiesau have to prove in order to win her negligent supervision and negligent retention claims against Davis and the county?
- Did Davis and the county owe any legally cognizable duty to Kiesau in connection with the supervision of Bantz and the retention of him as an employee? Was it foreseeable to Davis and the county that unless supervised closely, Bantz could cause harm to a fellow employee such as Kiesau?
- Was the trial court correct in dismissing Kiesau's negligence claims against Davis and the county?
- If Davis and the county were to argue that they should not be held liable for a wrong committed by Bantz, what would be the appropriate response for Kiesau to make?
- When an employer decides to hire a particular employment applicant, does the employer owe any ethical obligations to persons other than the applicant? If so, what are they? If not, why not? Once a particular employee has been hired, does the employer owe others any ethical obligations in connection with the actions of that employee? If so, what are they? If not, why not?