Following California’s Second District Appeals Court ruling, hospitals can be held responsible for sexual abuse perpetrated on patients by their employees. The court made this ruling in a case involving two elderly patients sexually abused in a southern California hospital by a male employee.
When making the ruling, the court upheld the $6.75 million worth of damages awarded to the two elderly patients for the incident that occurred at Aurora Vista del Mar, a Ventura psychiatric hospital. The court also held that the damages awarded to the two were not subject to the $250,000 medical malpractice caps considering that both victims were above 65.
Negligent Hiring
Under personal injury law, there are situations where the employer may be held liable for accidents resulting from negligent actions of their employees. This is more so when an organization is proved to have acted with negligence when hiring.
It is not mandatory to run a background check when hiring. But failing to do so can constitute negligent hiring which was the case with the Southern California psychiatric hospital. According to the court, the hospital had hired the worker despite having a history of sexual misconduct. The lack of caution when hiring resulted in the worker taking advantage of the two elderly patients when he was left alone in their rooms which puts the blame squarely on the hospital.
Shared Blame
The jury apportioned 35 percent of the blame on the offender and 65 percent on the health facility and its owner. However, the court ruled that a hospital or its owner can carry full responsibility for sexual abuse cases that results from workplace conditions or negligence. Psychiatric patients are particularly vulnerable, and hospitals ought to exercise the highest level of caution when hiring to ensure the safety of their patients.
According to the court, the hospital management acted recklessly, maliciously, and in a manner that made what happened inevitable. Under normal circumstances, employers are liable for harm caused by their employees. However, exclusions for damage resulting from sexual assault have always existed, which courts have previously ruled as individual behavior.
In this case, the hospital should have known that the employee had a history of sexual offenses. The fact that the hospital employee continued to work in an institution with some of the most vulnerable patients points to negligence. There are only two reasons why this could have happened; the hospital failed to conduct a background check when hiring, or the hospital knew the offender’s criminal history but chose to hire them anyway.
Retrial Order
In its final ruling, the court ordered a retrial to determine whether the health facility should pay all the damages resulting from the employee’s conduct. Based on the strength of the case, the outcome of the retrial can go either way. But irrespective of the outcome, the offender will be looking at more than damages. They will also be facing criminal charges for sexual assault, which could earn him time in jail, fines, or both upon conviction.
“There is no telling what the employee had gotten away with before these two cases of sexual abuse came to light,”says Berkowitz Hanna Malpractice & Injury Lawyers. Unfortunately, most victims do not report cases of abuse which results in many offenders failing to face justice for their crimes.