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?

The seminal case of Di Cosala v. Kay originally contended with the theory of negligent “hiring or retention of an incompetent, unfit, or dangerous employee,” but has since had its logic extended to training and supervision. G.A.-H., 238 N.J. at 415. The court explained “[t]he tort of negligent hiring or failure to fire addresses a different wrong from that sought to be redressed by the respondeat superior doctrine,” rather, the tort “addresses the risk created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual, while the doctrine of respondeat superior is based on the theory that the employee is the agent or is acting for the employer.” DiCosala, 91 N.J. at 172. In other words, “the wrong here redressed is negligence of the employer in the hiring or retention of employees whose qualities unreasonably expose the public to a risk of harm.” Id. at 174.