knew of some of the indiscretionsand became aware of others on the part of its newly hired real estate agentwhen employment was offered. These indiscretions included forging documentsfor a former employer, a conviction for passing bad checks and lying aboutobtaining a realty license. Despite knowledge of these matters, the realtorvouched for the employee's character to the public. The court concludedthat the firm was liable for the consequences of it's agents misconductbecause most of the individual's past actions became known to the employerafter this person was hired. In a New Mexico case, Valdez vs. Warner ( 742 P. 2d 517 { N.M. App.1987}), a bar employee assaulted a patron, Victor A. Valdez, In the parkinglot of his employer and his co-defendant Z&E Inc. The plaintiff broughtactions. The court of appeals accepted evidence that the " defendant previouslyphysically assaulted the son of the owner of the (Co) defendant bar, and atone point he was banned from the bar for fighting, and that while workingas a bouncer in the same bar he was involved in other physicalalterations." Even with knowledge gleaned before he was hired andsubsequent knowledge gained after employment, the defendant was retained.The court found " There was evidence.... that the owner of the bar wasnegligent in Hiring Warner with his background of violent behavior..." An additional twist to this case was the plaintiffs request forpunitive damages. The courts response to this request was that " Recoveryof punitive damages is permissible if the jury finds the wrongdoers conductto be willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, oppresive or grosslynegligent..." The court added that " Gross negligence is a sound basis for award ofpunitive damages." The case was remanded to a lower court with instructionssaying that if a jury found, based on the evidence, That Z&E Inc. wasguilty of gross negligence, than punitive damages would be appropriate. Courts that have heard ...
