95. In her subsequent action against the plumbing company, based on a theory of negligent hiring, is the woman likely to prevail?

A is correct. The issue in this question is the scope of liability in a negligent hiring claim context. When an employer fails to act with reasonable care in hiring an individual, the employer opens itself up to potential liability if the employee subsequently causes harm of a type related to the negligence in hiring. However, employers are not liable for all possible activities or actions in which the employee might engage. The classic example of this are activities the employee undertakes when not working. That is the situation this question presents because, though the worker was driving in to work, he was not yet there, and his trips to work were not part of his job (note that the company did not pay him for his trips in). Thus, even if the employer was negligent in hiring the worker, its liability does not extend to this accident.

B is incorrect. Although employers are often not vicariously liable for the acts of independent contractors, the facts do not indicate that the worker was an independent contractor. Further, negligent hiring still applies to hiring independent contractors, and thus this answer choice does not provide a valid explanation for why the cause of action at issue — negligent hiring — would not succeed.

C is incorrect. The fact that the employer fitted the worker's truck with a pipe rack does not transform all the worker's driving outside working hours into being within the scope of employment. The facts do not state the worker was required to haul pipes while not working: instead, they state he «was required to haul pipes on his truck while driving between the warehouse and the construction sites.. . .» The facts further specify that he was not paid to drive to or from work. Thus, the worker was not acting within the scope of his employment, and the company is therefore not liable for his actions at that time under a negligent hiring theory.

D is incorrect. It might be true that the company had a duty to verify that the worker had a valid driver's license, but for the question of duty to matter, the cause of action at hand must be potentially applicable in the first place. Negligent hiring does not apply to acts taken by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. Thus, even if it is true that the employer had a duty to ensure its workers had valid driver's licenses, that is not controlling here.