Negligent Supervision: Employer Liability for Employee Torts – Duty, Elements, and Scope

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s decision in Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Marietta Area Healthcare, Inc., 2025 WL ___ (W.Va. May 14, 2025). Marietta Area Healthcare and related entities sued Camden-Clark and its affiliates (collectively “Camden-Clark”) after Camden-Clark’s officers and counsel pursued a qui tam action against Marietta. The federal district court certified three questions to the West Virginia Supreme Court: (1) whether negligent supervision is viable under West Virginia common law, (2) the elements of that claim, and (3) whether an employee’s intentional or reckless tort can support negligent supervision liability. The Court answered all three questions in the affirmative.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court confirmed that a claim for negligent supervision exists under West Virginia common law.
It held that such a claim requires the traditional negligence elements—duty, breach, causation, and damages—plus proof of a tortious act or omission by the employee.
The Court further ruled that the underlying employee misconduct may be negligent, reckless, or intentional; employers remain liable if they negligently failed to supervise.
These certified answers were issued de novo, consistent with established standards for addressing questions from federal courts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Keyser Canning Co. v. Klots Throwing Co. (1923): Early recognition of direct employer liability for supervisory failures.
Robertson v. LeMaster (1983): Duty and foreseeability in negligence.
West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority v. A.B. (2014): Application of negligent supervision in custodial contexts.
Speedway LLC v. Jarrett (2023): Recent acknowledgment of the tort in employment settings.
Fields v. Mellinger (2020): De novo review standard for certified questions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began by reaffirming that negligent supervision is well rooted in West Virginia common law. It then applied the classic four-part negligence framework:

Duty: An employer may owe a duty to third parties to control or oversee employees whose roles create foreseeable risks.
Breach: The employer must have failed to exercise reasonable care in supervising or monitoring the employee.
Causation: There must be a direct link between the employer’s supervisory lapse and the harm suffered.
Damages: The third party must have suffered compensable injury.

The judgment adds a fifth requirement: proof that the employee committed a tortious act or omission—whether negligent, reckless, or intentional. This aligns negligent supervision with § 213 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency, which imposes liability on employers who fail to guard against an employee’s known harmful propensities. The Court rejected any per se immunity for employers when employees act intentionally or recklessly, emphasizing that an employer’s duty is a function of foreseeability and the scope of employment tasks.

Impact

Employers in West Virginia must now recognize direct potential liability for supervisory failures tied to any tortious employee misconduct.
Plaintiffs can bring negligent supervision claims even when the underlying wrong is intentional or reckless, broadening avenues for relief.
Litigators must plead and prove the employer’s knowledge (actual or constructive) of an employee’s dangerous propensities or prior misconduct.
Insurers and employers may face increased exposure and should reassess risk management, training, and oversight protocols.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Negligent Supervision: A direct negligence claim against an employer for failing to oversee an employee whose tortious conduct injures a third party.
Respondeat Superior: A separate doctrine that imputs vicarious liability for an employee’s acts within the scope of employment; negligent supervision is direct liability for the employer’s own breach.
Certified Question: A procedural device by which a federal court asks a state’s highest court to clarify state law.
De Novo Standard: The West Virginia Supreme Court reviews certified questions afresh, without deference to the lower court’s conclusions on state law.
Foreseeability: The cornerstone of duty analysis in negligence—would a reasonable employer predict that failure to supervise could harm others?

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has clarified and reaffirmed that negligent supervision is a viable cause of action. Employers subject to West Virginia law owe a duty to third parties to supervise employees in a manner consistent with reasonable care. A successful negligent supervision claim requires proof of duty, breach, causation, damages, and an underlying tortious act by the employee—whether negligent, reckless, or intentional. This decision significantly expands employer liability for supervisory lapses and provides clear guidance on the elements required to sustain such claims.