Contesting an Employer’s Liability for Criminal Conduct of an Employee in the Workplace
In a case of first impression, the New Hampshire Supreme Court considered--and rejected--the argument that an employer has a duty to protect an employee against foreseeable criminal attacks by third parties. The case arose when Hilliard, an off-duty ATT employee, 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, 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 did go on to say that under the specific facts alleged, the employer may have become aware of an imminent danger of serious harm to Dupont. At that point, the Court said, the employer would have a duty to protect Dupont from Hilliard’s attack.
In a case of first impression, the New Hampshire Supreme Court considered--and rejected--the argument that an employer has a duty to protect an employee against foreseeable criminal attacks by third parties. The case arose when Hilliard, an off-duty ATT employee, 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, 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 did go on to say that under the specific facts alleged, the employer may have become aware of an imminent danger of serious harm to Dupont. At that point, the Court said, the employer would have a duty to protect Dupont from Hilliard’s attack.
RSS Feed
