1 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY, LEGAL, SAFETY AND SECURITY RESEARCH VOLUME II CHANGING INNKEEPERS STANDARD OF CARE: CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES Rosemarie Krebs & Peter Ricci University of Central Florida As a traveler, hotel guests have come to expect quality service, cleanliness, and safety as part of a pleasant and satisfying hotel stay. During the past several decades, safety and security have become more important to travelers. When staying at a lodging facility, guests expect the owners, managers, and/or operators of hotels to provide a reasonable degree of protection from guest injury or harm. In the United States, this determination of reasonable varies widely among state statutes and judicial interpretations. In an attempt to improve protection of guests who secure paid lodging accommodations, a Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania, couple has initiated a grass-roots-level crusade to nationalize the standard of care innkeepers must take when hiring employees. The murder of their daughter has spurred a national movement with the goal of improving guest safety and security. This research examines the importance of an employer conducting criminal background checks on prospective employees and examines the role of Nan s Law in the hospitality industry. KEYWORDS: Hotel crimes, duty of care, Nan s Law, reasonable care, background checks As a traveler, hotel guests have come to expect quality service, cleanliness, and safety as part of a pleasant and satisfying hotel stay. During the past several decades, safety and security have become more important to travelers. Incidents including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland (Harris, 2003), the German tourist murders of the early 1990s in Miami, Florida (Ruggless, 1994), and the September 11 th 2001 terrorist attacks made world headlines. Trepidation while traveling due to these well-publicized events is omnipresent across cultures, age levels, and traveler personal demographics. When staying at a lodging facility, guests expect the owners, managers, and/or operators of hotels to provide a reasonable degree of protection from guest injury or harm. In the United States, this determination of reasonable varies widely among state statutes and judicial interpretations. In an attempt to improve protection of guests who secure paid lodging accommodations, a Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania, couple has initiated a grass-roots-level crusade to nationalize the standard of care innkeepers must take when hiring employees. The murder of their daughter has spurred a national movement with the goal of improving guest safety and security. In 1996, Nan Toder was murdered at age 33 in a suburban Chicago hotel by the facility s maintenance manager. Investigators said Christopher Richee used his master key to enter an unoccupied room next to hers, rig the door between her room and the empty one, and then slip in and bludgeon her to death (Silver, 2003).
2 2 After Nan Toder s death, her parents filed a civil lawsuit against the owners of the Hampton Inn in Crestwood, Ill. alleging that the owners and managers had been negligent in failing to do a background check on employees, had ineffectual security systems, and had no method of controlling room keys. In mid 2003, the Toders agreed to a $4.6 million settlement with the defendants (Silver, 2003). The Toders contend that a background check would have turned up Richee s criminal record and might have led the Hampton Inn to think twice about hiring him as their maintenance manager and giving him access to all rooms. During the murder investigation, it was learned that Richee had a history of criminal behavior, including the unlawful use of a weapon and allegations of stalking a female co-worker (Carrino, Migdal, & Norman, 2004). In addition, according to the webpage (2004), Richee was known to the local police for harassing girlfriends. His former employer suspected him of a major burglary. The Hampton Inn s manager even recounted to police that the murderer told her he liked to pull the wings off birds to watch them die, and throw cats into wood chippers. Although none of the latter allegations would have shown up on a criminal background check, the unlawful use of a weapon and stalking of a female co-worker would have. Currently, there are no federal or state laws requiring innkeepers to conduct criminal background checks on employees and no industry-wide safety standard on this subject. While many hotel chains do indeed perform such checks, smaller mom and pop operations may not have the budget to implement such a practice. Further, criminal background checks may be local, regional, statewide, national, or international with a larger scope commanding a higher price per individual check (Silver, 2003). The Toders contend that a nationwide background check would only cost about $40.00 per individual. Hotel operators and owners would be obligated to pay for the criminal background checks on applicants for each of many positions that have guest room access. Given that, historically, the hotel industry has suffered from high turnover rates, often exceeding the rates of other industries (Ricci & Milman, 2002), innkeepers required to perform a criminal background check on every prospective employee who would have access to a guest room would have a heavy burden to bear. It is quite common for hotel employees from all departments such as housekeeping, front desk, engineering, food and beverage, as well as sales and marketing to need guest room access at various times to perform their duties. However well-intentioned the motive, such a law could cost hotel operators and owners tens of thousands of dollars a year. According to Nan Toder s father, Sol, many hotel guests erroneously think this type of law is already in place. As part of their criminal background check crusade, Sol and his wife enlisted the help of Pennsylvania State Representative Tom Stevenson, R-Mt. Lebanon (Silver, 2003) to draft a bill on this issue. Recently, their movement achieved what might be construed as the first step on the road to setting a national criminal background check requirement on innkeepers. On January 21, 2004, the Pennsylvania State General Assembly heard testimony on Pennsylvania House Bill 1350 that would require lodging establishments to perform criminal background checks on job applicants who would have access to guest rooms, if hired (Toder & Toder, 2004). The bill, currently under review by the Pennsylvania House Tourism and Recreational Development Committee, if passed, will be referred to as Nan s Law. Respondeat Superior and Negligent Hiring While many travelers would agree that conducting criminal background checks on employees in certain job capacities appears to be reasonable on its face, the question of whether lodging establishment should be required by law to perform background checks on employees is not as
3 3 simple as it may appear. The concepts of respondeat superior and negligent hiring have long been used to impose civil liability on employers for the tortious acts of their employees. Suing an employer under the principle of respondeat superior is more limited than suing under the theory of negligent hiring because in order for a plaintiff to win against an employer under respondeat superior, the plaintiff must show that the employee committed the tortious act while in the scope of his employment (Restatement Second of Agency, 1958). This can be problematic at times since the scope of an employee s job is not always clearly delineated. In determining if an employee s act was indeed within the scope of his employment, courts have generally looked at whether the employee s act was in furtherance of the employer s goals, authorized to be done by the employer, or specifically stated as part of the employee s job description (Restatement Second of Agency, 1958). If these conditions do not exist, then the concept of respondeat superior will not be applied and the employer will not be held responsible for an employee s act done outside of the scope of his or her employment. A prime example of this is when an employee commits a crime, especially a violent one against a third party, while on duty at work. Presumably, the employer did not authorize nor dictate that the employee commit such an act. In this instance, although the concept of respondeat superior would not be applicable, the theory of negligent hiring might. As distinguished from respondeat superior, the concept of negligent hiring imposes civil liability on an employer for the acts of its employees if the employer knew or should have known that the employee was likely to behave in a dangerous manner. What makes the concept of negligent hiring so powerful is that the employer may still be liable to a third party even if the employee committed a crime while off-duty. In addition, even if the employer did not actually know about the employee s propensity toward criminal behavior, under the theory of negligent hiring, the employer may still be liable because he or she was under a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection of his or her employees. In some instances this may mean that in order to be free from liability under the theory of negligent hiring, employers will have to demonstrate that they conducted criminal background checks on prospective employees. In order to reduce the liability that the concept of negligent hiring may impose on employers, two States, Louisiana and Florida, have passed laws (Fla. Stat ; La. R.S. Title ) that protect employers from civil liability if the employer has conducted a background check on a job applicant and such employee commits a tortuous act on a guest or customer. The laws do not bar a lawsuit on the basis of negligent hiring; but, the laws do create a presumption in favor of the employer that the employer was not negligent in hiring its employee. According to the Florida law, in order to create such a presumption, the employer must fulfill certain requirements: 1. Obtain a criminal background check from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and 2. Make a reasonable effort to contact references and former employers of the job applicant, and 3. Require the applicant to give information regarding prior criminal convictions on the employment application, and 4. If relevant to the applicant s job, check the employee s driving record, and 5. Interview the applicant (Fla. Stat ). Under both the Florida and Louisiana laws, if an employer complies with the requirements of the law, and the employer finds no evidence suggesting an employee has a criminal record or a propensity for criminal acts, then the employer will be presumed innocent of negligent hiring, even if the employee did commit a crime on a third party. Nonetheless, neither Florida, Louisiana, nor any other state currently imposes the obligation on innkeepers to conduct a criminal background check of their job candidates. In certain other fields, however, such as with child-care and school employees,
4 4 employers have long been required to conduct criminal background check for all prospective employees. Since this Florida law and others like it exist, is there a reason to have Nan s Law? Nan s Law Although Nan s Law may appear at face value to be a good law, certain questions arise. One challenge to the proposed law is that it is too costly and cumbersome for employers to conduct thorough background checks on all prospective employees who have access to guest rooms. In addition, many criminal background checks are conducted on a local level that may not be sufficient for criminals who have moved from one location to another. Indeed, an international background check would hold the highest potential value but would also likely be the most costly. Another difficulty of the proposed law is that, as it currently stands, Nan s Law would only mandate that innkeepers conduct a criminal background check but it does not say what the employer should do if the employer discovers that a prospective employee has a criminal record (Nan s Law, 2003). The choice to not hire an applicant who has a recent or even lengthy criminal record is easy; however, should an employer automatically reject an applicant who has one criminal conviction for an act committed many years ago, especially, if the applicant has already served his penalty? What about the case of a one-time felony conviction that is not related to the applicant s prospective job, such as a housekeeper who has in the past been convicted of involuntary manslaughter due to drunk driving? Should the employer refuse to hire such applicant? Two dilemmas arise here: since a housekeeper does not usually operate a motor vehicle for his or her job, there is no real link between a housekeeper s job and the prior criminal conviction; unless, of course, the housekeeper will be driving a laundry truck or other vehicle around the property (1). In addition, if the applicant claims that he was an alcoholic and no longer drinks, can an employer hold such conviction against the applicant (2)? In this instance, the issue of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 comes into play. According to the ADA, alcoholism is considered a disability. Therefore, an employer cannot discriminate against an applicant if he or she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, especially if the applicant claims that he or she no longer drinks. In many instances, the ADA would even require an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an alcoholic in the form of allowing such employee one chance to rehabilitate himself or herself while knowing that his or her job is waiting when the employee finishes the rehabilitation program. Nonetheless, an employer can still discipline, discharge, or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol would adversely affect job performance or conduct (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2004). Could an innkeeper choose to not hire an applicant for a guest contact position (almost every position in a hotel) solely based on the applicant s alcoholic status? If the applicant is seeking a position as a housekeeper, the essential functions of the job are to clean guest rooms, where arguably, the applicant s alcoholic status should be irrelevant. An innkeeper could argue that an alcoholic presents a greater risk to its guests than a non-alcoholic, however, does an alcoholic necessarily have a greater propensity for committing violent criminal acts on guests than a nonalcoholic? The real question, of course, is whether or not it would be considered negligent on the part of an employer to hire a person who did not have a criminal record but who admitted to being an alcoholic and who later committed a criminal act against a guest or customer? The authors chose to discuss past criminal behavior and to provide just one example of a hypothetical employee who has been convicted of the criminal act of DUI so the reader can compare this analogy. Our point is that not all past criminal behavior is necessarily violent or potentially detrimental to a guest. Thus, performing a criminal background check should only serve to isolate
5 5 certain people from getting jobs where those individuals may indeed pose a risk to guests, employees, owners, operators, or any other individual involved with the operation of a lodging facility. Case Law and Reasonable Care Historically, reasonable guest protection has not been dictated by statute, but rather through case law, which of course, varies somewhat among states. At one end of the spectrum is the Illinois landmark case of Fortney v. Hotel Rancroft (1955), which holds an innkeeper to an extremely high standard of care for its guests. In the Fortney case, a long-term guest of a hotel was assaulted and injured in his guest room when a stranger wrongfully gained access to Fortney s guest room. The hotel claimed that it had exercised reasonable care in attempting to keep trespassers away from the guest rooms and that this was all it was required to do. In reversing the lower court s verdict in favor of the hotel, the Appellate Court maintained that a high degree of responsibility rested with the hotel operator for the guest s protection. Indeed, the opinion included a broad statement indicating that, A guest, who is either asleep in his room or about to enter his room, should not be subjected to the risk of an assault by a stranger. A guest has a right to rely upon the innkeeper doing all within his power to avoid or prevent such an assault, and to that end should be required to exercise a high degree of care (Fortney v. Hotel Rancroft, Inc.,1955). This case is important because, even though it was decided in 1955, it is still valid law in Illinois, and because it differs from conventional tort law that states that an innkeeper s duty is only to take reasonable care to protect its guests against unreasonable risk of physical harm (Restatement Second of Torts, 1965) and not to do all within his power to protect guests from being injured. The Illinois case specifically requires an innkeeper to go beyond the norm of using reasonable care and requires its innkeepers to exercise the highest degree of care. Although this may seem like semantics, there is a big difference between exercising the highest degree of care and reasonable care. With the term exercise the highest degree of care, the court is obligating an innkeeper to almost guarantee against all harms that may befall a guest even if the harm was not foreseeable. While the term exercising reasonable care only requires an innkeeper to use as much care as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the same or similar circumstances (Black s Law Dictionary, 2000). In addition, the obligation to exercise reasonable care is only imposed upon the innkeeper if a harm was foreseeable and generally speaking, a crime committed by a third party is not foreseeable (Restatement Second of Torts, 1965). Thus, an innkeeper is not usually required to guard against such unforeseeable events. The Kline v Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.(1970) court stated such principle very clearly: Specifically, innkeepers have been held liable for assaults which have been committed upon their guests by third parties, if they have breached a duty which is imposed by reason of the innkeeper-guest relationship. By this duty, the innkeeper is generally bound to exercise reasonable care to protect the guest from abuse or molestation from third parties, be they innkeeper's employees, fellow guests, or intruders, if the attack could, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have been anticipated (Kline v Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp., 1970). Kline has persuasively stated that the innkeeper should not have to guarantee that a crime will nor be attempted or committed. However, even though the Kline decision is from a U.S. Court of Appeals, it is from the court of appeals for the District of Columbia, therefore, it is not applicable across states. While it occurred in 1970 and may appear on its surface to be somewhat dated, it is
6 6 not a state court decision, limited to only one state, and has broader appeal to innkeepers nationally. In addition, the authors contend that a federal appeals court decision is often more persuasive than a state appellate court s decision. The prevailing point of view on the issue of how much care should be taken by innkeepers for their guests is best explained by the Florida court in Fennema (1990) when it stated that It is settled in Florida that an innkeeper owes the duty of reasonable care for the safety of his guests person and property, that generally speaking, it is peculiarly a jury function to determine what precautions are reasonably required in the exercise of a particular duty of due care (Fennema v. The Howard Johnson Co.,1990). Of course, an exception to the general principle of not being responsible for the criminal acts of third parties is if the innkeeper knew or should have known about an assailant s special propensity for criminal activity. Fennema v. The Howard Johnson Co., 1990 has been cited mostly for the principle of equitable estoppel where the court refused to rule in favor of the hotel because it had misrepresented the risk of the guests getting their property stolen when the hotel knew of such risk (in advance) and misrepresented such risk to its guests. Hence, Fennema illustrates the duty of an innkeeper when a risk is foreseeable or known. The Fennema (1990) case recognized this as it acknowledged that an innkeeper's knowledge, as here, of prior criminal activity on or around the grounds of his inn imposes a duty to take adequate security precautions for the safety of his guests and their property. Likewise, in the Texas case of Walkoviak v. Hilton Hotels Corp., (1979), a hotel invitee had attended a business conference at a Hilton Hotel. While in the hotel s parking lot near his vehicle, the invitee was beaten, stabbed, robbed, and left unconscious in his automobile by two unknown assailants. Walkoviak sued the hotel alleging that the hotel had failed to supply adequate protection and warning for use of the hotel s parking facility. Initially, the lower court held in favor of the hotel because under Texas law an innkeeper is not an insurer of the safety of his guests and an innkeeper's responsibility to his guests consists only of the duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care (Walkoviak, 1979). However the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas declared that: The proprietor of a public business establishment has the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect his patrons from intentional injuries caused by third persons if he has reason to know that such acts are likely to occur, either generally or at some particular time. Liability for injuries may arise from the failure of the proprietor to exercise reasonable care to discover that such acts by third persons are occurring, or are likely to occur, coupled with the failure to provide reasonable means to protect his patrons from the harm or to give a warning adequate to enable the patrons to avoid the harm (Walkoviak). Hence, liability may be imposed upon an innkeeper if he knew, or should have known, an employee s inclination toward criminal behavior against a guest. While these cases do not deal with employee behavior, they do instead deal with the issue of foresee ability and crimes. As stated earlier, generally, crimes are not seen as foreseeable, therefore an innkeeper is not deemed to be negligent for not preventing such unforeseeable crimes. In the past, where a court has found an innkeeper liable to an injured party it is because the innkeeper either they knew or should have known of the criminal risk and did not take reasonable care to eliminate such risk. In essence, this is the basis for Nan s Law, which asserts that a hotel which fails to conduct a criminal background check and hires someone who has a criminal history and will have access to guest rooms will be liable for the crimes the new employee commits on guests. Thus one finds the relevancy of these cases in a discussion of Nan s Law. The question arises: if the prevailing legal principles already hold an innkeeper accountable for criminal acts carried out by third parties on
7 7 guests when the innkeeper was negligent in carrying out the duty to protect his guests, is Nan s Law needed? The Pennsylvania courts have previously declared through case law, that innkeepers are subject to liability for the accidental, negligent or intentionally harmful acts of third persons (Moran v. Valley Forge Drive-In Theatre, Inc., 1968; Rabutino v. Freedom State Realty, Inc., et al, 2002). As such, the Pennsylvania courts already require innkeepers to take reasonable precautions against that which might be reasonably anticipated to harm a guest. In Rabutino (2002), a guest at a Travelodge Hotel was accidentally shot to death by another guest of the same hotel. The shooter was part of approximately 200 partygoers under the age of 21 years who were drinking and partying on several floors of the Travelodge. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania (an appellate court), held that the owners of the Travelodge owed the deceased the duty to take reasonable precaution against harmful third party conduct that might be reasonably anticipated and concluded that the owners of the Travelodge could have reasonably anticipated harm flowing from the shooter s conduct alone without needing a history of past criminal activity occurring at or near the Travelodge. Given that the courts and statutes have addressed the issue of an innkeeper s duty to protect its guests, is it redundant to have another statute stating the same thing? The main contribution of Nan s Law to the prevailing body of law is that it would specify a particular action, that of conducting a criminal background check, as meeting the standard of reasonable care. Given that American laws tend to be ambiguous because of the freedom they offer to judges and juries to make decisions on a case by case basis tailored to specific facts, Nan s Law would constrict such freedom by imposing an explicit act across the board on one particular industry. Conclusion Where do we turn from here? Today s travelers have a higher and higher expectation for safe and secure travel. American travelers, for example, have adjusted during the past three years to long waits at airports and to extra heavy baggage scanning and observation. The hotel industry is rebounding and revenues are once again on the increase (Higley, 2004). With increasing room revenues and profitability, hoteliers will have a more difficult time convincing the traveling public that a $ $60.00 background check is not a worthwhile endeavor to improve guest security and protection. Just ask Nan Toder s parents. As Nan s father, Sol, stated, What we hope for is legislation ensuring that travelers in Pennsylvania and then elsewhere cannot only feel safe, but be safe (Silver, 2003). Concern for guest safety remains an issue of paramount importance. Is Nan s Law the answer to all aspects of an innkeeper s responsibility for reasonable care? Definitely not. But it may very well be yet another tool toward the provision of reasonable care and protection for guests as determined by U.S. courts. The authors neither stand for nor against the Nan s Law in terms of its usefulness, practicality, or potential benefit to guests and/or innkeepers. Instead, the question arises as to what remains the best method of protecting guests and providing reasonable care to ensure the practice of such care. Providing reasonable care to guests is undoubtedly in the best interests of owners, operators, managers, and the lodging industry. If Nan s Law adds to prevailing law toward a stricter standard of reasonable care, then it may be strongly supported by the public at large. However, if the cost to implement such a law does not yield significant improvements in the protection of guests and, instead, burdens hoteliers with additional costs, procedures, and paperwork, the benefits and support will most surely lessen. The final word on Nan s Law has not yet been stated within the lodging industry. The issue of criminal background checks for lodging employees continues to evolve and change with differing opinions, levels of contention, and justifications.
8 REFERENCES 8 Carrino, A.L., Migdal, N., & Norman, J.M. (2004) Hotel security Where the claims are? Hospitality Industry, Feb. Retrieved August 26, 2004, from Garner, B.A. (2000). Black s Law Dictionary, Abridged (7 th ed.). Eagan, MN: West Group Publishers. Fennema v. The Howard Johnson Co.: 559 So. 2d 1231; 15 Fla. L. Weekly D 869 (1990). Florida Statutes Fortney v. Hotel Rancroft, Inc.: 5 Ill. App. 2d 327;125 N.E.2d 544 (1955). 42 U.S.C.A Ch , 2002 Harris, S. (2003). Air warrior. Government Executive, 35(16), S11. Higley, J. (2004). Executives pinpoint signs of a rebound. Hotel and Motel Management, 219(3), 1, 40. Kline v Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.: 439 F.2d 477 (D.C. Cir. 1970). Louisiana Revised Statutes Title D(1). Moran v. Valley Forge Drive-In Theatre, Inc.: 431 Pa. 432, 246A.2d 875 (1968). Nan s Law. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from Pennsylvania House Bill 1350 (2003). Rabutino v. Freedom State Realty Company, Inc.: 809 A.2d 933 (Pa. Super. 2002). Restatement Second of Agency (1958). Restatement Second of Torts (1965). Ricci, P., & Milman, A. (2002). Retention of hourly hotel employees: A look at select hotels in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Hospitality Human Resources, 1(4), Ruggless, R. (1994, April 25). South Florida hotels: On the road to recovery. Nation's Restaurant News, 28, 45. Silver, J. D. (2003). Mt. Lebanon couple settle lawsuit in daughter's murder. PG Publishing Co. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from
9 9 Toder, L., & Toder, S. (2004). Pennsylvania State Legislature first in country to hear testimony for "Nan's Law," requiring hoteliers to conduct criminal background checks on employees with access to guest rooms. Retrieved February 20, 2004 from U.S. Department of Justice (2004). Americans with Disabilities Act home page. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from Walkoviak v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 580 S.W. 2d 623 (1979). Submitted March 1, 2004 First Revision Submitted September 22, 2004 Second Revision Submitted November 13, 2004 Accepted January 5, 2005 Refereed Anonymously Rosemarie Krebs, J.D. ( and Peter Ricci, CHA are both assistant professors in the Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida.
Premises Liability for Third Party Crime (Full Article) Owners and managers of commercial property (including leased residential properties) can be held liable under civil negligence claims for harm to
PBI Electronic Publication # EP-2820 Analysis of Premises Liability for the Criminal Acts of Third Parties Kenneth M. Dubrow, Esq. The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP Philadelphia A chapter from Tort Law Update
Policy Options: Limiting Employer Liability When Hiring Individuals Formerly Incarcerated Employers in Philadelphia require skilled and dedicated workers in order to be successful. Returning citizens (those
MOLESTATION LIABILITY EXAMINES SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT & FORESEEABILITY James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1997 James C. Kozlowski In determining agency liability for sexual molestation by its employees, an employer
NEGLIGENCE: ELEMENT I: DUTY CHAPTER 13 General Rule on Duty What is a duty? A duty is an obligation or a requirement to conform to a standard of conduct prescribed by law. Consider the following questions.
Torts Copyright July, 2006 State Bar of California After paying for his gasoline at Delta Gas, Paul decided to buy two 75-cent candy bars. The Delta Gas store clerk, Clerk, was talking on the telephone,
GRADER'S GUIDE *** QUESTION: ESSAY QUESTION NO. 3 *** QUESTION NO. 1 (30 Points) Battery SUBJECT: TORTS John potentially has a battery claim against the guard. Battery is the intentional unlawful touching
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
Employer Liability for Workplace Violence I. Employer Liability under OSHA/MOSHA a. Employers must maintain a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to
Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts What is Negligence? Someone who commits a careless act that creates harm to another person is negligent. Over the past several years, negligence has become the
Unintentional Torts - Definitions Negligence The failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise that results in the proximate cause of actual harm to an innocent person.
SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under
Employer Liability for Employee Conduct by Lisa Mann 05-01-2000 EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYEE CONDUCT: When Does An Employer Have to Pay? by Lisa Mann Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. Employers
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
Negligence: Element III: Proximate Cause Chapter 15 Introduction Proximate Cause. 1) the causation question (cause in fact): Did the defendant cause the plaintiff s injury? 2) The policy question ( a cut-off
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND Introduction The purpose of this paper is to alert the reader to concepts used in the defense of construction related lawsuits and to suggest how
A. RECOVERY ON DERIVATIVE LIABILITY CLAIMS The employer's duty to members of the public in both negligent hiring and negligent supervision cases stems from the principle that the employer receives benefits
Defense of State Employees: LIABILITY AND LAWSUITS UNCW Office of General Counsel January 2010 COMMON CAUSES OF ACTION (or what could we be sued for) Tort claims Contract claims Discrimination/Harassment
Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) On a separate sheet of paper, write down the answer to the following Q s; if you do not know the answer, write down the Q. 1. What is a crime? 2. There are elements of a crime.
Legal Liability in Recreation Site Management RRT 484 Professor Ed Krumpe 1 Legal Climate Sovereign immunity is basically dead. Lawsuits are part of normal operations & we cannot prevent them. Injuries
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
SAFETY REVIEW NOT SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2008 James C. Kozlowski In contracting for personal services, an architect's duty depends on the particular agreement entered into
Agents E&O Standard of Care Project Survey Maryland To gain a deeper understanding of the differing agent duties and standard of care by state, the Big I Professional Liability Program and Swiss Re Corporate
NEGLIGENCE (Heavily Tested) (Write On the Bar): In order for Plaintiff to recover in Negligence, she or he must plead and prove: DUTY, BREACH OF DUTY, ACTUAL CAUSATION, PROXIMATE CAUSATION, AND DAMAGES.
STATE OF OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Rodney L. Umberger, Jr. Marc M. Carlton Williams Kastner 888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 228 7967 Email: email@example.com
Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of
EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE TIPS By: Stephen J. Heine Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Peoria The Laws of Intestate Succession Permit Only Descendants to Share in the Proceeds of a Wrongful Death Suit Where the
Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Keyser, 2011 IL App (3d) 090484 Appellate Court Caption ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES W.
NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS By Celeste King, JD and Barrett Breitung, JD* In 1998
The HIDDEN COST Of Proving Your Innocence Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year, or about 6,850 times per day. This means that each
2015 IL App (1st) 142157-U FOURTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-14-2157 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1072 Yvette Ford, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Public Schools, Respondent. Filed December 15, 2014 Reversed and remanded Peterson, Judge Hennepin County District
No. 2-13-0390 Order filed December 29, 20140 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule
2000 PA Super 205 KATHLEEN BORING, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. CONEMAUGH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellee No. 1110 WDA 1999 Appeal from the Judgment entered June 15, 1999 in the Court
Case 2:09-cv-00532-JPH Document 23 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL WALKER : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : NO. 09-532 BIG BURGER RESTAURANTS,
Minnesota Association of Townships Document Number: RM1000 Information Library Revised: January 2012 The following is an excerpt from the 2012 Manual on Town Government. LIABILITY Any discussion of a town
Making Sure The Left Hand Knows What The Right Hand Is Doing Representing Health Care Providers In Medical Negligence Cases by: Troy J. Crotts, Esq. Florida Continues as National Leader in Disciplinary
Recent Case Update VOL. XXII, NO. 2 Summer 2013 Insurance Summary Judgment Stacking UIM Saladin v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company (Court of Appeals, 12 AP 1649, June 4, 2013) On August 26, 2010,
LOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS The Concept of Negligence If you have been injured, only an experienced Louisiana personal injury accident attorney can evaluate the unique facts and circumstances
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION-CIVIL FIRST FINANCIAL INSURANCE : June Term 2009 COMPANY, : Plaintiff, : No. 2231 v. : LIBERTY
*LRB00HEPb* TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY State of Illinois 0 and 0 HB00 Introduced //0, by Rep. Michael J. Zalewski SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED: 0 ILCS 0/ from Ch., par.. 0 ILCS / from Ch., par. 0 0 ILCS /. new Amends
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: MICHAEL A. MINGLIN Miller & Minglin, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JAMES W. ROEHRDANZ ERIC D. JOHNSON Kightlinger & Gray, LLP Indianapolis,
Submissions on Civil Liability Reform The Coalition of British Columbia Businesses October 2002 Introduction: The following submissions are made on behalf of the Coalition of British Columbia Businesses.
CLAIMS AGAINST FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON By: Jack Slavik COZEN AND O'CONNOR 1201 Third Avenue Seattle WA 98101 Atlanta, GA Charlotte, NC Cherry Hill, NJ Chicago, IL Columbia, SC Dallas,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-00315-SCT CALLOP HAMPTON v. CHARLES BLACKMON AND DEXTER BOOTH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/23/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WINSTON L. KIDD TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: WILLIAM
A REASONABLE PERSPECTIVE ON RECREATIONAL INJURY LIABILITY James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1988 James C. Kozlowski Driving an automobile is probably the most dangerous activity in our daily lives. Certainly,
Title XLV TORTS Chapter 768 NEGLIGENCE View Entire Chapter 768.28 Waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions; recovery limits; limitation on attorney fees; statute of limitations; exclusions; indemnification;
Summary It is a common belief that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) prohibits the use of arrest and misdemeanor information in the hiring process. As is discussed below, this is not the
CHALLENGING CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATIONS I. Challenging Predicates for Career Offender! The Basic Rule for Career Offender 4B1.1 A defendant is a career offender if: 1. The defendant is at least 18 years
No Warning Shot April 3 rd 2014 Nick Sanders Tech 435 Dr. Earl Hansen The Presenter Nick Sanders Graduating Senior from Northern Illinois University Bachelors in Industrial Management & Technology, Emphasis
2009 Minnesota Car Accidents Laws/Statutes Statutes are laws that apply to all citizens and cover a variety of topics, including the following: the legislature, the executive branch, state departments,
2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 THIRD DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent
Chapter Five CRIMINAL LAW AND VICTIMS RIGHTS In a criminal case, a prosecuting attorney (working for the city, state, or federal government) decides if charges should be brought against the perpetrator.
Page 1 29 of 41 DOCUMENTS SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. D062406 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE
June 1, 2011 I. EMPLOYMENT LAW Employer Must Show Economic Injury to Successfully Invoke Key Employee Exception Under the Family and Medical Leave Act In Johnson v. Resources for Human Development, Inc.,
General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance
Michigan Prepared by Cardelli Lanfear P.C. 322 West Lincoln Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: 248.850.2179 Fax: 248.544.1191 1. Introduction History of Tort Reform in Michigan Michigan was one of the first states
NO. COA13-614 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 December 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 59792 DANNY DALE GOSNELL 1. Homicide first-degree murder not guilty verdict jury
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Case: 12-12181 Date Filed: 08/06/2013 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-12181 D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01103-GAP-GJK STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY
INTRODUCTION INVESTIGATIONS GONE WILD: Potential Claims By Employees By: Maureen S. Binetti, Esq. Christopher R. Binetti, Paralegal Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. When can the investigation which may
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Hart v. Kieu Le, 2013 IL App (2d) 121380 Appellate Court Caption LYNETTE Y. HART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOAN KIEU LE, Defendant-Appellee. District & No. Second
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408 JAMES K. MEADOR V. APPELLANT T O T A L C O M P L I A N C E CONSULTANTS, INC., AND BILL MEDLEY APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 31, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY
NURSING HOME CARE ACT INTRODUCTION The Nursing Home Care Act, 210 ILCS 45/1, et seq., was adopted amid concern over reports of inadequate, improper and degrading treatment of patients in nursing homes.
NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579
February 15, 2016 Professional Practice 544 Tort Law and Insurance Michael J. Hanahan Schiff Hardin LLP 233 S. Wacker, Ste. 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-258-5701 firstname.lastname@example.org Schiff Hardin LLP.
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 03-11688 D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK
MEMORANDUM From: Mitchell S. Cohen, Esquire Re: Decisions Governing the Issue of Secondary Exposure Asbestos Cases in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and States of New Jersey and New York Date: 11 November
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1362 James Joyce, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Armstrong Teasdale,
Case 4:09-cv-01889 Document 27 Filed in TXSD on 10/23/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DUSTIN S. KOLODZIEJ, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-09-1889
2014 MVP LAW SEMINAR EMPLOYER LIABILITY FROM VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE www.mvplaw.com KEEP CALM AND CALL MVP DALLAS JULY 17TH KANSAS CITY AUGUST 7TH ST. LOUIS SEPTEMBER 25TH GUNS AND VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
Policy Summary Dram Shop Liability This policy summary is excerpted from: The December 2015 Report to Congress on the Prevention and Reduction of Underage Drinking Dram Shop Liability Policy Description
Owner s Damages for Construction Defects: A Primer 18th Annual Construction Superconference December 12, 2003 San Francisco, California Kenneth I. Levin email@example.com 1 Owner s Damages Generally
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION RAIMO CORPORATION and/or : ISAAC LEIZEROWSKI : November Term 2003 : Plaintiffs, : No. 611
Advancing the meetings, conventions and expositions industry Attorneys and Counselors at Law 1620 I (Eye) Street, NW 6 th Floor Washington, DC 20006 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 202.429.8634
No. 11 3107 Case: 11-3107 Document: 28 Filed: 05/02/2012 Pages: 5 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Cook County Jury Awards $24.55 Million to Woman Paralyzed in Car Accident 4.4.12 This case was reported informally by Patrick Dowd, Chicago, Illinois attorney, and the jury verdict was reported by Westlaw