Roaf v. Rebuck Consulting, LLC – 6/25/2024
Arizona Supreme Court holds that a trial court should preclude evidence related to a negligent-hiring claim when the employer admits both direct and vicarious liability, and the only issue before the jury is the amount of compensatory damages.
Plaintiff brought lawsuit against employee-driver for negligence and against employee-driver’s employer under theories of (1) vicarious liability for employee-driver’s negligence, and (2) direct liability for employer’s negligent hiring. Plaintiff sought only compensatory and economic damages. Employer admitted liability. Employer moved in limine to preclude evidence of employee-driver’s personnel record and driving history. Plaintiff introduced evidence of the personnel record and driving history at trial. The trial court allowed the negligent-hiring claim to proceed to the jury and gave an instruction that the jury apportion fault between employee-driver and employer. Employer moved for a new trial, arguing, in part, that the negligent hiring claim allowed prejudicial evidence to be presented to the jury. The court denied the motion, and the court of appeals agreed there was no showing of prejudicial error.
Evidence regarding an employer’s alleged liability for negligent hiring is irrelevant and inadmissible when the employer admits fault. Under A.R.S. § 12-2506(A), in a personal injury action, each defendant is liable only for the “damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault.” However, under § 12-2506(D), an employer is wholly liable for its employee’s fault when the employee’s fault arises from the employee’s act taken within the scope of employment. Where an employer admits fault, the employer is wholly responsible, and the principles of comparative fault do not apply. In such cases, the only relevant question before the jury is the calculation of compensatory damages, not the apportionment of fault. Evidence related to apportionment of fault is thus irrelevant and inadmissible when an employer admits fault and plaintiff does not seek damages for injuries separately sustained because of the employer’s conduct or for punitive damages against the employer.
In this case, the admission of employee-driver’s personnel record and driving history was prejudicial error. Plaintiff presented the irrelevant evidence to the jury and argued employer’s culpability from that evidence. Despite the lack of punitive damages claim, Plaintiff asked jury to punish employer based on the irrelevant evidence. Furthermore, the trial court instructed the jury to apportion fault between employee-driver and employer based on that evidence. The jury subsequently apportioned 60% fault to employer, despite employer’s accepting 100% responsibility. The Court found, under the circumstances, that admission of the personnel record and driving history prejudiced the verdict.
Chief Justice Brutinel authored the Opinion, in which Vice Chief Justice Timmer and Justices Bolick, Lopez, Beene, Montgomery, and King joined.
Posted by: Molly Walker