Dupont v. Aavid Thermal Technologies, Inc., 147 N.H. 706, 798 A.2d 587 (2002).

The New Hampshire Supreme Court, agreeing with NELF’s position, rejected the argument that an employer has a special duty to protect an employee against criminal attacks by third parties.  The case arose when Hilliard, an off-duty employee of Aavid Thermal Technologies (“ATT”), killed Dupont, another ATT employee, in the parking lot of ATT’s facility.  Dupont’s family sued ATT, claiming that the employment relationship was a “special one” with a heightened duty of care, analogous to those between school and student, common carrier and passenger, and innkeeper and guest.  The Court rejected this argument, saying that adopting such a rule would impose an “onerous burden” on employers.  The Court found potential liability under another tort theory, however.  Under the specific facts alleged, the employer may have become aware of an imminent danger of serous harm to Dupont.  At that point, the Court said, the employer would have a duty to protect Dupont from Hilliard’s attack.