1. The textbook discusses negligent hiring as a concept where at times an employer has a duty to protect people from the acts of their employees. The key to these cases is whether it was foreseeable that an employee would have harmed another person.
2. A great example is the case the employer is held liable and responsible for for an employee committing a sexual assault. Upon checking the employee's background before hire, the employee had a previous conviction for selling drugs, but no criminal background relating to sexual assaults.
3. Do you agree with the decision in this case that the employer should have foreseen this potential harm? Or do you think the court went too far due to the horrific nature of the assault, and wanting to hold someone responsible?