This case is before us after the Court of Appeals evenly divided over the negligent hiring/retention claim in the personal injury action brought by Christine Munroe against Universal Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Anchor Hospital Behavioral Health Systems.1 Munroe alleged that shortly after she entered Universal’s residential treatment facility as a patient, a mental health assistant named Shawn Love employed by Universal made inappropriate comments to her; that he came to her room and made sexual advances which ended when Munroe’s roommate interrupted him; and that he returned in the evening, administered medication to her that left her incapacitated and then raped her. The trial court granted summary judgment to Universal on the negligent hiring/retention claim after finding that Universal exercised ordinary care in the hiring process and that dishonest information in Love’s employment application did not put Universal on notice that he had a propensity to commit sexual assaults. Although we disapprove the foreseeability standard employed by the trial court, we conclude under the correct standard that summary judgment on Munroe’s negligent hiring/retention claim was proper. 1. An employer “is bound to exercise ordinary care in the selection of employees and not to retain them after knowledge of incompetency.” OCGA § 34-7-20. See also Restatement Second of Agency, § 213 person who conducts an activity through servants or other agents is “subject to liability for harm resulting from his conduct if he is negligent or reckless: . . . b in the employment of improper persons . . . in work involving risk of harm to others”. Thus, the appellate courts have recognized that an employer may be liable for hiring or retaining an employee the employer knows or in the course of ordinary care should have known was not suited for the particular employment.2 E.g., Harvey Freeman & Sons, Inc. v. Stanley , 259 Ga. 233 2 378 SE2d 857 1989; Patterson v. Southeastern Newspapers , 243 Ga. App. 241, 245 533 SE2d 119 2000.
When an incompetent employee is hired for a particular position, it is reasonably foreseeable that such employee may injure others in the negligent performance of the duties of that position and accordingly an employer may be held liable for injuries caused by the negligent performance of the incompetent employee where evidence shows the employer knew or should have discovered that incompetency. See, e.g., Piney Grove Baptist Church v. Goss , 255 Ga. App. 380 2 565 SE2d 569 2002; Georgia Electric Co. v. Smith , 108 Ga. App. 851, 854 1 134 SE2d 840 1964. However, absent a causal connection between the employee’s particular incompetency for the job and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, the defendant employer is not liable to the plaintiff for hiring an employee with that particular incompetency. See Kelley v. Baker Protective Svcs. , 198 Ga. App. 378 401 SE2d 585 1991.
