Question

James Keller was an employee at Radical Boards, Inc. Radical Boards is a surf and skateboard shop that also sells clothing. While employed there, Radical Board's principal shareholder discovered that Keller had created peep holes in the shop's dressing rooms. When confronted with the peep holes, Keller denied every using them and indicated that they were there to prevent shoplifting. The shop manager was told to fire Keller. Shortly after Keller left, a 16-year-old and her mother filed suit because the teen learned, through conversations with Keller, that he had seen her in the dressing room while she was trying on swimming suits. Keller was able to describe her not-generally-seen birthmarks to her. Radical Boards: a. cannot be held liable to the teen and her mother because it did engage in the conduct. b. could be held liable under a theory of negligent failure to supervise. c. is no longer liable because it terminated Keller. d. has not committed any tort because watching customers in dressing rooms in part of a merchant's right. e. none of the above

Answer 1

Answer:

b. could be held liable under a theory of negligent failure to supervise.

Explanation:

In this example, Radical Boards, Inc. could be held liable under a theory of negligent failure to supervise. It is clear in this example that Radical Boards was not aware initially of the fact that Keller had created and utilized the peep holes. However, it was nevertheless their duty to supervise their employees. This can be considered negligent supervision. Negligent supervision occurs when a person is meant to supervise others, but fails to do so in a responsible manner. This can include the supervision of employees.