Keller v. Koca ex rel. Alpar
2005 WL 878523, 111 P.3d 445, 2005 Colo. LEXIS 360 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an employer to be liable under a negligent supervision claim, the harm caused by the employee must be a foreseeable manifestation of the specific risk of which the employer knew or should have known. An employer's generalized knowledge of an employee's prior misconduct does not create a duty of care for a harm that is different in character, victim, and circumstance.
Facts:
- Donald Keller owned a dry cleaning business and employed Firat Uzan as General Manager, giving him keys to the premises.
- Prior to the incident, three female employees complained to Keller that Uzan had sexually harassed and fondled them on the premises during business hours.
- One employee's mother also called Keller, warning him of potential civil liability regarding Uzan's conduct.
- Keller confronted Uzan, who denied the allegations, and Keller took no further corrective action.
- Uzan was a family acquaintance of Tugba Koca, a twelve-year-old girl.
- On a Sunday morning when the business was closed, Uzan brought Koca to the premises, ostensibly to help with carpet cleaners.
- While there, Uzan took Koca into a back office, locked the door, and sexually assaulted her.
- Uzan did not have authorization from Keller to bring third parties to the business during non-working hours.
Procedural Posture:
- Tugba Koca filed a civil action against Donald Keller in a Colorado trial court for negligent supervision.
- The trial court, acting as the finder of fact, found Keller liable and awarded damages to Koca.
- Keller, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Keller had a duty to Koca.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted Keller's petition for certiorari to review the decision of 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:
Under a negligent supervision claim, does an employer owe a duty of care to a third party for an employee's intentional tort when the harm that occurred was not a foreseeable manifestation of the specific risk of which the employer had knowledge?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bender
No, an employer does not owe a duty of care under these circumstances. To establish liability for negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show a direct nexus between the employer's knowledge of the employee's specific dangerous propensities and the harm that occurred. While Keller knew Uzan posed a risk of sexually harassing female employees and customers during business hours, Uzan's sexual assault of a twelve-year-old non-employee, at the business while it was closed, was not a foreseeable manifestation of that known risk. The court refused to adopt a broad theory of liability based on generalized knowledge of prior misconduct, emphasizing that the specific harm must be foreseeable from the known risk.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Mullarkey
Yes, the employer did owe a duty of care. The majority takes an unreasonably narrow view of foreseeability and duty. Keller knew Uzan had a propensity for sexually assaulting young women on the premises, and the assault on Koca was 'remarkably similar' in location (the back room) to the assaults on employees. Because Keller gave Uzan unrestricted access to the premises, the duty should not be limited to business hours or to individuals with a direct business connection like customers or employees. Keller knew he was employing a sexual predator and failed to take reasonable steps to control him on the premises.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the tort of negligent supervision by tightening the foreseeability requirement. It establishes that an employer's duty is not triggered by a general awareness of an employee's misconduct but is limited to risks that are specifically foreseeable from that known conduct. This ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to hold employers liable for an employee's intentional torts, especially when the circumstances of the tort differ from the employee's known history. The case establishes a strong precedent requiring a direct nexus between the known risk and the actual harm suffered.
