Malorney v. B & L Motor Freight, Inc.
146 Ill. App. 3d 265, 100 Ill. Dec. 21, 496 N.E.2d 1086 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring an employee may include investigating an applicant's non-vehicular criminal history, particularly when the nature of the employment provides the employee with an instrumentality that creates a foreseeable risk of harm to the public.
Facts:
- Edward Harbour applied for a position as an over-the-road truck driver with B & L Motor Freight, Inc.
- On his employment application, Harbour falsely stated that he had no criminal convictions.
- In fact, Harbour had a history of convictions for violent sex-related crimes and a recent arrest for aggravated sodomy of two hitchhikers while driving a truck for another employer.
- B & L verified Harbour's vehicular offenses but did not investigate or verify his statement regarding other criminal convictions.
- B & L hired Harbour, provided him with an over-the-road truck equipped with a sleeping compartment, and gave him written instructions prohibiting him from picking up hitchhikers.
- While driving for B & L, Harbour picked up Karen Malorney, a 17-year-old hitchhiker, at a toll-road plaza.
- In the sleeping compartment of the truck, Harbour repeatedly raped, sexually assaulted, beat, and threatened to kill Malorney.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Malorney filed a complaint against B & L Motor Freight, Inc. in an Illinois trial court, alleging recklessness and wilful and wanton misconduct in the negligent hiring of Edward Harbour.
- B & L filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it had no legal duty to verify Harbour's non-vehicular criminal record.
- The trial court denied B & L's motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court then certified the question of the employer's duty for an interlocutory appeal.
- B & L Motor Freight, Inc., as appellant, was granted leave to appeal the trial court's order to the Illinois Appellate Court, with Karen Malorney as the appellee.
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 have a duty to investigate the non-vehicular criminal record of a prospective employee hired as an over-the-road truck driver and entrusted with a truck equipped with a sleeping compartment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Murray
Yes, an employer has a duty to exercise reasonable care when hiring for a position that poses a foreseeable risk to the public, and under these circumstances, this duty includes investigating an employee's non-vehicular criminal history. The existence of a legal duty depends not only on foreseeability but also on public policy and social requirements. Illinois law already establishes that a vehicle owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in selecting a driver and that an employer can be liable for negligently hiring a person they knew, or should have known, was unfit. While an employer does not need to foresee the precise injury, the potential for harm must be foreseeable. Providing a driver with an over-the-road truck equipped with a sleeping compartment, coupled with the common knowledge that truckers may give rides to hitchhikers despite rules to the contrary, creates a foreseeable risk. Therefore, B & L had a duty to investigate Harbour's background, and whether it breached that duty is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of an employer's duty in negligent hiring cases. It establishes that the duty of reasonable care can extend beyond verifying job-specific qualifications (like a driving record) to include investigating non-vehicular criminal history when the job's circumstances create a unique risk. The ruling makes it more difficult for employers in similar situations to obtain summary judgment, shifting the determination of whether a background check was adequate from a question of law for the judge to a question of fact for the jury. This strengthens protections for third parties who may be harmed by employees placed in positions of trust or given control over potentially dangerous instrumentalities.
