Contact me at markploftus@aol.com

Saw an interesting negligent hiring case recently decided by the Illinois Appellate Court. Illinois law permits person injured by employees with violent propensities to recover against the employer where the employment created a situation where the employee's violent tendencies harmed the plaintiff. In Elliot v. Williams, the plaintiff, Hedy Elliot was staying at an apartment complex where the owner/manager had hired Titan Security to provide necessary security. Elliot alleged that she had been staying with a friend who lived in the building and earlier in the day she had gone shopping. Upon her return, she had an armload of packages and a soda. She was struggling to open a door when a security guard opened it for her. She had a brief conversation with the guard while waiting for the elevator.

At 10:30 pm that evening, the guard came up to the apartment and asked the plaintiff to join him for a drink. The plaintiff declined.

Sometime between 11:45 pm and 2 am, the guard called and asked if he could come up to the apartment. Again, the plaintiff declined. He called again a short while later, saying he had a gift. After initially refusing, the plaintiff agreed to let him up. She opened the door when she heard the guard's knock. Shortly thereafter the plaintiff was assaulted. The guard was arrested, tried and convicted of assault. The plaintiff filed a negligent hiring claim against Titan for failed to conduct an appropriate background check on the guard. The agency filed a motion for summary judgment basically arguing that their hiring of the guard was not the cause of the accident - - instead, it was the plaintiff's act in opening the door. The trial judge granted the agency's Motion, dismissing the case against the agency.

The Appellate Court, thankfully, looked at the case a bit differently than the trial judge. The Court found that there was a genuine issue of fact(i.e something a jury should decide)whether Titan's hiring of the guard, without a background check(which would have revealed a criminal past) was a cause of the jury. The Court noted that the plaintiff's decision to open the door was based in part, upon her knowledge that the guy she was opening the door for was a security guard. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the agency should should have known that it was not unlikely that a resident or guest would open their door to security personnel working in the building. The decision of the trial judge was reversed, and the case was sent back down to the trial level, so that the case could continue.

This case is similar to a case I settled a couple of years ago. My client was badly beaten by security guards from a bar after an altercation in the bar. I had a negligent hiring count, wherein I alleged that several of the guards had criminal backgrounds that hadn't been checked out before they were hired. The defense denied any of them had backgrounds and I actually had to get the expunged records to show that one of the guards had been charged with one murder and a battery upon a woman shortly before the incident with my client. My theory was that the bar should not have hired guys with violent tendencies to work in a security position. The defense ultimately agreed and paid a large settlement.