John Phipps and Sandra Phipps v. Robert Wayne Walker and Randall Wayne Walker

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03A01-9508-CV-00294

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; April 3, 1996; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In this case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals, John and Sandra Phipps (Plaintiffs/Appellants) filed a lawsuit against Robert Wayne Walker (Defendant/Appellee) and his son, Randall Wayne Walker (Defendant), for negligent hiring after their home was burglarized by Randall Walker. Robert Walker, owner of Walker Electric, had employed Randall, despite his knowledge of Randall's criminal history and substance abuse issues. The Phipps argued that Robert Walker had a duty to ensure that his employees did not pose a threat to clients and breached this duty by allowing his son access to their home. As a result, they claimed damages from the burglary, for which Randall was later arrested and pled guilty.

The court addressed a motion for summary judgment filed by Robert Walker, which asserted that the Phipps could not prove essential elements of their claims, particularly since Randall's actions occurred outside the scope of his employment. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the case with prejudice. The Phipps appealed, questioning the appropriateness of the summary judgment. The court stated that summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, emphasizing that evidence must be viewed favorably for the non-moving party.

In White v. Methodist Hospital South, the court established that a plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to support the essential elements of their claim when defending against a summary judgment motion. For a negligence claim to proceed, the plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a duty and an injury that was proximately caused by the breach of that duty. The tort of negligent hiring implicates that an employer is liable for harm resulting from employing individuals who may pose risks to others.

Foreseeability is crucial in determining negligence; if an injury could not have been reasonably anticipated, there is no duty of care, and thus no liability, even if the defendant's actions caused the injury. The plaintiff must prove that the injury was a probable outcome of the defendant's actions rather than a mere possibility, and that the defendant could have taken measures to prevent the injury. 

An affidavit submitted by the appellee, the owner of Walker Electric, revealed that neither he nor Walker Electric had knowledge of any illicit substance use or prior criminal behavior by Randall Walker, who was not involved in the electrical work at the plaintiffs’ house. Randall Walker only had access to the plaintiffs' home while subcontracting for Shore Builders, and at the time of a break-in, he was not working for Walker Electric. The affidavit emphasized that Curtis Shuler was the only electrician from Walker Electric assigned to the plaintiffs’ project.

Randall Walker, who has a history of substance abuse, is believed to have been successfully rehabilitated at the time of a burglary incident. He is 30 years old, lives independently, and is not financially reliant on the affiant. Mr. Phipps, the homeowner, recounts that after moving into his home, he contacted Robert Walker about a kitchen light issue, leading to Randall Walker’s visit to fix it. During this visit, Randall identified a problem with the light switch and made repairs in the presence of Mr. Phipps. Mr. Phipps had previously observed Randall performing electrical work at his residence. Following a burglary that occurred shortly after Randall’s visit, it was discovered that security lights were maladjusted, leading to concerns over Randall’s employment and his father's awareness of his criminal history.

The appellants argue that there are factual disputes regarding whether Randall was allowed to work on their home due to his employment by Robert Walker, as well as whether Robert was aware of his son’s substance abuse and criminal behavior. It is suggested that the father-son relationship may imply that Robert should have foreseen the risk of harm due to Randall's tendencies. The case cites the Gates ruling, which requires evidence of an employee's unfitness, the potential risk to others, and the employer's knowledge of the employee's criminal history for a negligent hiring claim. Although Robert acknowledges his son's past substance abuse, he asserts ignorance of any illegal drug use or prior burglaries at the time of employment. The court finds no substantial evidence contradicting Robert's statement. Additionally, materials submitted by Mr. Phipps, including a supplemental affidavit and a pre-sentence report, do not comply with procedural rules and therefore are not considered. Even if they were admissible, they do not demonstrate that Robert knew of Randall's propensity for burglary.

Randall Walker's pre-sentence report indicates a history of misdemeanor theft, traffic violations, drug possession, and forgery. However, it was determined that the appellee had no duty to the Appellants in this case. The Appellants failed to prove proximate cause, which, while typically a jury's determination, can be resolved by the trial court when facts are undisputed. The Appellants acknowledged that Walker's criminal actions occurred outside his employment scope. According to precedent in Corder v. Metropolitan Government, an employer is not liable for an employee's wrongful acts committed outside of work, regardless of any negligence in hiring. Consequently, the circumstances of Walker's access to the Appellants' home by the appellee are irrelevant. The trial court's judgment is affirmed, and costs are assigned to John and Sandra Phipps, with execution permitted if necessary.