Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Massachusetts

Thank you for your question. I am sorry you have to go through this. The following may help you understand what your employer is liable for and when.

There are certain instances when an employer is liable for the acts of its employees:

Job-Related Accidents or Misconduct

Under a legal doctrine sometimes referred to as "respondeat superior" (Latin for "Let the superior answer"), an employer is legally responsible for the actions of its employees. However, this rule applies only if the employee is acting within the course and scope of employment. In other words, the employer will generally be liable if the employee was doing his or her job, carrying out company business, or otherwise acting on the employer's behalf when the incident took place.

The purpose of this rule is fairly simple: to hold employers responsible for the costs of doing business, including the costs of employee carelessness or misconduct. If the injury caused by the employee is simply one of the risks of the business, the employer will have to bear the responsibility.

But if the employee acted independently or purely out of personal motives, the employer might not be liable. Here are a few examples to illustrate the difference:

�A restaurant promises delivery in 30 minutes "or your next order is free." If a delivery person hits a pedestrian while driving frantically to beat the deadline, the company will probably be legally responsible for the pedestrian's injuries.

�A technology services company gives its sales staff company cars to make sales calls. After work hours, a sales person hits a pedestrian while using the company car to do personal errands. Most likely, the company will not be held responsible for the incident.

�A law firm issues cell phones to all of its lawyers, to allow them to call into the office and check in with clients when they are on the road. A lawyer, driving, hits a pedestrian because she is completely engrossed in her telephone conversation with a senior partner in the firm. The law firm will probably have to pony up for the pedestrian's injuries.

�A medical billing company hires a fumigator, who sprays the company's office with powerful pesticides. The next day, a dozen employees fall ill from the fumes. One of the affected employees is sent home; on her way, she suffers a dizzy spell and hits a pedestrian. The company is probably on the hook.

If you are sued under this legal theory of respondeat superior, your employee's victim generally won't have to show that you should have known your employee might cause harm, or even that you did anything demonstrably wrong. If your employee caused the injury while acting within the scope of employment, you will have to answer to the victim.

Careless Hiring and Retention

Under a different legal theory, someone who is injured by your employee can sue you for failing to take reasonable care in hiring your workers ("negligent hiring") or in keeping them on after learning the worker poses a potential danger ("negligent retention"). This rule applies even to what your workers do outside the scope of employment -- in fact, it is often used to hold an employer responsible for a worker's violent criminal acts while working, such as rape, murder, or robbery.

However, under this theory you are legally responsible only if you acted carelessly -- that is, if you knew or should have known that an applicant or employee was unfit for the job, yet you did nothing about it.

This does not mean, in any way, that the employees who did this are not liable. Depending on the final dollar amount of the damage, what they did may be considered a felony.

If you feel in any way threated, please contact your local police department and they will assist you in obtaining a restraining order against these individuals.

I hope this helped in some way. Please let me know.

Best of luck to you.