Malicki v. Doe

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing the need to differentiate between the two negligent claims based on the timing of when employer is charged with knowledge of the employee’s unfitness
• explaining that “[t]he primary distinction between a claim for negligent hiring and a claim for negligent supervision or retention concerns the time at which the employer is charged with knowledge of the employee’s unfitness” (emphasis added)
• noting that allegations that “the Church Defendants either knew or should have known that Malicki had the propensity to commit sexual assaults and molestations . . . are the classic elements of negligent hiring and negligent supervision claims”
• discussing split of authority among states on issue of whether church autonomy doctrine bars tort claim against a religious institution
• allowing neutral principles of tort law to resolve claim for negligent hiring against Catholic Church where priest was alleged to sexually batter minors
• claims of negligent hiring and supervision arising from sexual abuse by priest concerned ‘‘a neutral principle of tort law,’’ namely, foreseeability of harm to third parties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).