Negligence; Schultz v. Consumers Power Co.; Duty; In re Certified Question from Fourteenth Dist. Court of Appeals of TX; Graves v. Warner Bros.; Negligent hiring or retention; Mueller v. Brannigan Bros. Rests. & Taverns LLC; Hersh v. Kentfield Builders, Inc.; Whether an employer has a duty to verify an employee’s driver’s license status; Tortora v. General Motors Corp. Motion to file a third amended complaint; Weymers v. Khera; Kostadinovski v. Harrington; Futility; PT Today, Inc. v. Commissioner of Office of Fin. & Ins. Servs.

The court held that because plaintiff failed to allege an appropriate and recognized standard of care that defendant-Elwood breached, amending the complaint to allege negligent hiring would be futile. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiff asserted that Elwood “provides temporary employment opportunities at a number of workplaces and that” it placed defendant-Murphy in a temporary position at defendant-Shawnee, “where Murphy worked at the time of” the car accident involving plaintiff and Murphy. Because plaintiff provided no support for his argument as to negligent hiring, the court rejected his claim as abandoned on appeal. It added that, in any event, Tortora suggested there “is no duty on the part of an employer to verify the driver’s license status of an employee.” Further, here there was “even less of a reason to hold Elwood responsible for ensuring the status of Murphy’s driver’s license. The Tortora employee drove company cars as part of his employment and the employer was still not charged with verifying the employee’s driving status.” While it was questionable whether the same result would be reached in a similar case today, “Murphy was neither entrusted with driving her employer’s cars, nor was driving a part of her job responsibilities.” It was undisputed that she was placed with Shawnee as a machine operator. There was “no evidence or indication that having a valid driver’s license or driving was a requirement of her employment with Elwood or her placement as a temporary worker at Shawnee.” In fact, Elwood’s human resources manager “testified at deposition that it is ‘against Elwood’s workers’ compensation coverage for it to have employees driving vehicles for client companies. We are not able to do business and allow our employees to do that.’ Additionally, it would be against public policy to impose a duty upon employers to only employ (in positions that do not directly require driving) those who had valid driver’s licenses and/or unblemished driving records. There are a multitude of people who do not have a driver’s license who are gainfully employed and” use other means to get to and from work. “Neither the Legislature nor the Secretary of State has seen fit to impose a preclusion on employment as an additional consequence of licensing sanctions, and we will not do so here.” Affirmed.