Section 32 Nexus Between Crime and Facts Showing Dangerous Proclivities

• Library: Employer-Employee Law 2008

The requirement that there be a relationship between the
assailant’s history of violence and the violent crime for which recovery is sought is similar to the tort requirement that the negligence alleged be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, although this has not always been expressly stated in the cases. Regarding this issue, in addition to Strauss v. Hotel Continental Co., 610 S.W.2d 109 (Mo. App. W.D. 1980), discussed in §24.30 above, see:

• Butler v. Hurlbut, 826 S.W.2d 90 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (two nonviolent convictions and suspended sentence with probation on another charge, even if employer knew or should have known of them, would not support negligent hiring claim when crime was off-premises murder of gas station customer by station attendant, arising from dispute over transaction at station)

• Stubbs v. Panek, 829 S.W.2d 544, 548 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (charge pending against assailant for petty larceny, conviction for illegal trash dumping, and child abuse charge that had been dropped not evidence of dangerous proclivities that would make him risk to commit abduction, assault, and murder using access to apartment...