under the right to privacyarguement, a constitutional arguement employing fourth amendment illegalsearch and siezure guarantees. Human resources managers can be heard incorporate hallways mumbling about these apparent conflicts andincongriuties in common law and government mandate. Historically, If a worker commited a negligent act, a plaintiff oftenwould sue his or her employer under the theory of Respondeat Superior, orlet the master respond. (3) This doctrine holds the employer liable for hisor her employees' negligent, on the job actions and does not depend in anyway on the fault of the employer. (4) Common law held that employers owedthier employees a duty to provide a safe place to work. Eventually, thisduty was extended to providing safe employees, because the courts reasonedthat a dangerous co-worker is comparable to a defective machine. (5) In the majority of successful negligent hiring/retention court casesthe nature of the relationship between customer plaintiff and businessdefendant seems to drive the outcome. In cases in which plaintiffs haverecovered, there appears to be a higher degree of duty or care requiredbetween business and it's customers because of the nature of the product orservice provided. Fundamental to a negligence action is the existence of a duty owed bythe defendant to the plaintiff ( See Bidar Vs. AM-FAC, Inc., 66Haw. 547,551; 669 P. 2d 54, 158 {1983}.) A defendant owes a duty of care only tothose who are foreseeably endangered by the conduct and only with respectto those risks or hazards whose likelihood made the conduct unreasonablydangerous. ( See Hulsman vs. Hemmeter Development Corp., 65 Haw. 58, 68,647 P. 2d 713, 720 { 1982}.) Therefore, duty under the negligent hiring theory depends onforseeability, that is, "Whether the risk of harm from the dangerousemployee to a person...was reasonably forseeable as a result ofemployment."( See Di Cosala vs. Kay, 91 N.J. 159, 450A. 2d at 516 {1982}.)...
