How To Prove A California Negligent Supervision Claim

In California, a claim of Negligent Supervision is defined as:
Negligent supervision occurs when someone who has a legal responsibility to supervise another, like a child, an employee, etc., fails to do so, and someone is harmed as a result.
It simply means:
When a care giver or supervisor does not properly monitor the person they are responsible for.
There are 5 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The employer (defendant) hired an employee. In a negligent supervision claim, the employer (defendant) is the person or company that hired an employee, establishing a responsibility to oversee that employee’s actions while they are performing their job duties.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The employer conducted a formal interview process and extended a job offer to the employee.
* The employee completed all required onboarding paperwork and training sessions mandated by the employer.
* The employer provided the employee with a company-issued identification badge and access to company resources.
* The employee was assigned specific job duties and responsibilities as outlined in their employment contract.
* The employer maintained a payroll system that included the employee as a registered staff member. - Element 2. The employee was or became unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which they were hired. This means that the employee was unable to do their job properly, either because they lacked the necessary skills or because their condition changed, making them unsuitable for the tasks they were hired to perform.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The employee consistently failed to meet performance benchmarks, resulting in a significant decline in productivity over a six-month period.
* The employee exhibited erratic behavior, including frequent absences and unprofessional conduct, which affected team morale and collaboration.
* The employee received multiple warnings regarding their inability to complete assigned tasks, yet showed no improvement despite additional training and support.
* The employee’s lack of necessary skills became evident during critical project phases, leading to costly errors and delays.
* The employee was unable to adapt to new technologies and processes, rendering them ineffective in their role and unable to fulfill job responsibilities. - Element 3. The employer knew or should have known that the employee was unfit or incompetent for a particular task and that this unfitness or incompetence created a risk to others. An employer can be held responsible if they were aware, or should have been aware, that an employee was not capable of doing a specific job safely, and this lack of ability posed a danger to others around them.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The employee had a history of poor performance reviews that highlighted their inability to complete tasks effectively.
* Prior to the incident, the employer received multiple complaints from coworkers about the employee’s lack of competence in handling specific responsibilities.
* The employee had previously been involved in similar incidents that resulted in safety concerns, which the employer was aware of.
* The employer failed to provide adequate training or supervision despite knowing the employee struggled with essential job functions.
* The employee had not completed required certifications for the task at hand, which the employer was aware of prior to assigning the work. - Element 4. The employee’s unfitness or incompetence harmed the plaintiff. In a negligent supervision claim, this element means that the employee’s lack of skills or ability directly caused harm to the person making the claim, showing that the employer failed to properly oversee or train the employee.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The employee consistently failed to follow safety protocols, leading to multiple accidents that endangered coworkers and clients.
* The employee’s lack of training resulted in significant errors during critical tasks, causing financial losses for the plaintiff’s business.
* The employee exhibited erratic behavior that created a hostile work environment, negatively impacting team morale and productivity.
* The employee’s poor decision-making directly contributed to a major project failure, resulting in lost contracts and reputational damage for the plaintiff.
* The employee’s incompetence in handling customer complaints led to a decline in client satisfaction and a subsequent loss of business for the plaintiff. - Element 5. The employer’s negligence in supervising the employee was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. The employer failed to properly oversee their employee, and this lack of supervision played a significant role in causing harm to the plaintiff.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The employer failed to implement adequate training programs for employees, leading to a lack of awareness about safety protocols.
* The employer ignored multiple complaints from other employees regarding the negligent behavior of the employee in question.
* The employer had a history of similar incidents involving the same employee, indicating a pattern of negligence in supervision.
* The employer did not conduct regular performance evaluations, which could have identified the employee’s risky behavior earlier.
* The employer’s inadequate staffing levels prevented proper oversight of employee actions, contributing to the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 426.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Negligent Supervision, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively navigate your legal journey.
Prove Your CA Negligent Supervision Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only