Employers across numerous industries contend with claims of negligence in dozens of forms imputed to them through the conduct of those alleged to have "agent" or employee status. A primary branch of imputed liability to employers, or those alleged to be employers, is the doctrine of vicarious liability, also known as respondeat superior. Such liability is premised upon the idea that "the employee is the agent or, 'arm' of the employer." G.A.-H v. K.G.G., 238 N.J. 401, 415 (2019) (citation omitted). A secondary branch of imputing liability is known as negligent hiring, supervision, and training. "Unlike respondeat superior, negligent hiring, supervision, and training are not forms of vicarious liability and are based upon the direct fault of the employer." G.A-H, 238 N.J. at 415 (citing Schultz v. Roman, 95 N.J. 530, 534 (1984), and Hoag v. Brown, 397 N.J. Super. 34, 54 (App. Div. 2007)). The claim of negligent hiring is separate and apart from supervision and training, and requires separate elements. Id. Foreseeability being the crux of all negligence claims, and negligent training being no different, how are courts to analyze instances of plaintiffs alleging an employer's failure to train everyday or common sense skills?