Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), based in Orange County, California, is currently facing a civil lawsuit brought as a result of the actions of one of their employees. The employee, a pastor, was driving drunk in a company vehicle when he caused an accident resulting in the serious injuries that ultimately claimed the victim’s life. A lawyer explains how TBN may be held liable for its employee’s actions.
The TBN Case
According to the Los Angeles Times, Stephen Galiher, a pastor for the Costa Mesa, California-based Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), was allegedly drinking at a Newport Beach hotel with the president of TBN Network in April of 2009. Galiher left the hotel in a company-owned vehicle and began to drive home. Unfortunately, while on the Costa Mesa freeway, he struck and overturned another vehicle, causing the driver to sustain the injuries that ultimately claimed his life and led to a lawsuit against him and his employer, explains a lawyer in Orange County.
A 71-year-old man named David Rhodes was driving the vehicle, and his wife was in the passenger seat. Several months later, on November 3, 2009, Rhodes succumbed to death as a result of pneumonia. His family believes that the death can be directly linked to the accident and has filed suit against pastor Galiher. TBN was also named in the lawsuit, as the family alleges that the network turned a blind eye to Galiher's drinking and provided him with the vehicle that he was driving at the time of the accident.
Employer Liability for Employee Actions
An employer may be liable for negligence in hiring or retaining an employee. Under this cause of action, the employer is liable because he or she failed to exercise reasonable care when hiring a worker. The employer is liable because of his or her own negligence, not because of imputed employee negligence.
Negligent hiring or retention of an employee is a legal theory commonly used when companies hire or retain workers who commit criminal acts and harm co-workers or customers. For instance, in Wishum v. RiteAid, Rite Aid hired a uniformed security guard without a proper background check. The security guard had a prior conviction for sexual assault, and, within two weeks, he sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl. Although he was suspended, he continued to work while the assault complaint was being investigated. Shortly thereafter, he accused a 14-year-old plaintiff of shoplifting, locked her in an interview room, handcuffed her and sexually assaulted her. The case settled in a sealed settlement that was estimated to be around $2.4 million.
This theory of negligent hiring or retention could also apply to an employer who continues to employ—and provides a company car to—a worker with an apparent drinking problem if doing so was unreasonably negligent. This negligent retention theory may thus provide one legal argument for the Rhodes family. TBN has countered this argument by indicating that they have a zero-tolerance policy towards drunk driving. However, simply having a policy in place is not likely to protect the employer if that policy was not enforced. If the plaintiff can prove that the network president knew of Galiher's drinking and condoned it or looked the other way, then the network may be liable as a result of their own negligence in relation to the employment relationship.
Negligent Entrustment of a Vehicle
Another potential legal theory that Rhodes' family may rely on is negligent entrustment of a vehicle. According to California law, an individual may become liable for entrusting a vehicle to someone he knows, or should know from the circumstances, is unfit or incompetent to drive. For liability to attach, the accident must have been caused by the incompetence that was or should have been anticipated.
In this case, the network was allegedly aware of the fact that Galiher had a drinking problem, which could render him unfit to drive. More specifically, the network president—and by extension, the network—allegedly knew that Galiher had been drinking on the night of the accident. Permitting him to take the company vehicle when he was obviously unfit to drive could thus subject the network to liability for their negligence in giving him the car.
TBN's Liability
The Orange County pastor has admitted fault for the accident, pleading guilty in criminal court to felony charges of driving under the influence and causing injury, explains a lawyer. Criminal standards for determining fault are more stringent than civil standards, as criminal court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt while civil standards require only proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the Rhodes family should easily win their case against Galiher provided they are able to prove that the wrongful death from pneumonia can indeed by tied directly back to the accident.
Proving their case against TBN is a bit less straightforward, but either the negligent retention or the negligent entrustment of a vehicle claims should find strong support in the evidence presented in this case. The family, should they be successful, is seeking an unlimited amount of damages, including both actual compensatory damages and punitive damages. The trial has been set for April 16 in a Santa Ana, California court.
