Keith v. Health-Pro Home Care Servs., Inc.
2022-NCSC-72 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be liable under a theory of negligent hiring or retention for an employee's intentional tort when a sufficient nexus exists between the employment relationship and the plaintiff's injury. The existence of this nexus is a fact-sensitive inquiry and is not determined by a rigid, mandatory multi-factor test.
Facts:
- Thomas and Teresa Keith, an elderly couple with health and mobility issues, hired Health-Pro Home Care Services, Inc. to provide an in-home personal care aide.
- Health-Pro assigned Deitra Clark to the Keiths' home. At the time of hiring, Clark had a criminal record for non-violent offenses, lied about it on her application, and did not have a valid driver's license, yet Health-Pro either failed to conduct a proper background check or ignored its findings.
- During her employment, Clark gained intimate knowledge of the Keiths' home, their schedules, the location of their valuables (including rolled coins), and a spare key.
- After Clark's assignment began, cash and rolled coins went missing from the Keiths' home on multiple occasions.
- The Keiths reported the thefts to Health-Pro's owner, who told the Keiths' son he had a "strong belief" Clark was responsible and assured him Clark would not return to the home.
- A few weeks later, despite this suspicion and assurance, Health-Pro reassigned Clark to the Keiths' home.
- On September 28, 2016, Clark orchestrated a home invasion and armed robbery of the Keiths. She was not on duty at the time.
- Clark drove two accomplices to the home, who used the spare key to enter, held the couple at gunpoint, stole rolled coins and a pistol, and forced Mr. Keith to withdraw $1,000 from an ATM.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas and Teresa Keith sued Health-Pro Home Care Services, Inc. in Superior Court, Pitt County for negligence.
- At trial, the court denied Health-Pro's motions for a directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiffs' evidence and at the close of all evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict for the Keiths and awarded damages; the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- The trial court denied Health-Pro's post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial.
- Health-Pro, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that Health-Pro was entitled to a JNOV, and remanded the case.
- The Keiths, as appellants, appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina based on the dissent in the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer that continues to assign a personal care aide to an elderly couple's home, after suspecting the aide of theft from that home, have a legal duty to the couple for injuries resulting from a home invasion and armed robbery orchestrated by that aide using information gained during her employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Barringer, J.
Yes. An employer may be held liable for an employee's intentional criminal acts when the employer negligently retained an unfit employee, creating a foreseeable risk of harm, and there is a sufficient nexus between the employment and the resulting injury. The Court of Appeals erred by treating the factors from Little v. Omega Meats as a rigid, mandatory test rather than as guideposts for determining whether a sufficient nexus exists. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Keiths, a jury could find that Health-Pro had a duty because the harm was foreseeable; Health-Pro knew of Clark's suspected thefts from the vulnerable Keiths and her financial distress, yet reassigned her to their home. Clark used the 'intel' she gained through her employment to facilitate the crime, establishing the required nexus between her job and the Keiths' injuries.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Newby, C.J.
Yes, there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury on a negligent hiring theory, but the verdict should not be reinstated because the trial court committed prejudicial error. While the majority correctly holds that the claim is for negligent hiring and the evidence was sufficient, the trial court improperly instructed the jury on ordinary negligence instead of the specific elements of negligent hiring, which include the employee's unfitness and the employer's notice of that unfitness. Because the jury was not properly instructed on the applicable law, Health-Pro was prejudiced and is entitled to a new trial, not an affirmation of the original verdict.
Dissenting - Berger, J.
No. The employer did not owe a legal duty to the plaintiffs because the employee's violent criminal acts were not foreseeable and occurred outside the scope of her employment. An employer is not a guarantor of an employee's conduct at all times, especially when the employer has no ability to control the employee's off-duty actions. Clark's prior convictions were for non-violent misdemeanors, making a home invasion and armed robbery unforeseeable. Furthermore, under the factors from Little, no duty existed because Clark had no right to be at the plaintiffs' home when the crime occurred, and the employer received no benefit from her criminal acts.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies North Carolina's negligent hiring doctrine by rejecting a rigid, formulaic test for employer duty in favor of a more flexible 'nexus' inquiry. It expands potential liability for employers, particularly those in the home-care and service industries, by emphasizing foreseeability based on what the employer knew or should have known about an employee's unfitness. The court establishes that an employer cannot necessarily escape liability for an employee's off-duty tort if the employment placed the employee in a unique position to commit the harm and the employer had prior notice of the employee's dangerous propensities, such as dishonesty or theft.
