1. What did the court mean when it said that “negligent hiring and negligent retention are based on direct, not vicarious, liability?”
2. Why did the court reject the negligent supervision claim?
3. Why did the court reject the negligent hiring claim?
4. Why did the court allow the negligent retention issue to go to trial?
5. Gary Weimerskirch, assistant manager at Main Lanes Bowling Alley, walked in on David Coakley, a mechanic at the bowling alley and Coakley’s girlfriend as they were getting dressed, apparently having just engaged in sexual relations. Coakley then told Weimerskirch that he quit and he began to collect his belongings from the work area. Suddenly, Coakley then grabbed a two-by-four plank, ran toward Weimerskirch, and struck him on the head with it. Coakley’s criminal record included drug and alcohol-related offenses, along with one misdemeanor assault. However, his employer did not have any knowledge of this criminal record. Furthermore, Coakley had not acted violently at work previously.
a. What causes of action might Weimerskirch bring against the bowling alley?
b. Decide the case. Explain.
Published reports indicate the Yunker case was settled out of court soon after this decision was handed down.