Also known as: failures to supervise · failing to supervise · supervisory failure
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A basis for direct liability when a person or entity with authority over another fails to exercise reasonable care in providing training or oversight. The omission must create a foreseeable risk of harm or misconduct that the supervisor had both the ability and duty to prevent.
Forrest Falconer, a newly hired associate at a mid-sized firm, was assigned a complex commercial litigation matter without any partner review of his filings or client communications. Falconer missed a key discovery deadline and made unauthorized settlement overtures that prejudiced the client. The firm's managing partner had never implemented training protocols or periodic file audits for junior lawyers.
Flora Ford and Fumiko Fujimoto served as outside directors of a closely held bank. They routinely accepted the treasurer's oral assurances about loan balances without reviewing any supporting documentation or demanding regular reports. Large sums were later discovered to have been diverted by the treasurer over several years.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Fatima Flores, a social worker employed by the city, repeatedly removed children from homes without required court orders. Department supervisors received multiple internal complaints but maintained no system for tracking or correcting such practices. A child later suffered injury after an improper removal.
Farah Fox, a high-school principal, learned that students were bringing guns onto campus but declined to assign staff to monitor entrances or lockers. A student was shot during school hours. State officials later defended the absence of federal legislation by pointing to local enforcement options.
It creates direct liability for the supervisor's own omission when a duty to oversee exists and reasonable care is not exercised. The supervisor is held accountable for breaching that independent duty rather than being automatically liable for the subordinate's acts.
Supporting sources
A plaintiff must prove the defendant knew or should have known of the need and opportunity to exercise control, possessed the ability to control the actor, and failed to take reasonable steps that proximately caused the harm.
Supporting sources
Yes, when the parent knows of the child's dangerous tendencies and has both the ability and opportunity to control the child but fails to do so. Recent notice of similar misconduct supplies the required knowledge of need.
Supporting sources
Yes, when the premises are open to the public the landowner owes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care to protect invitees from dangerous activities conducted by concessionaires or contractors on the property.
Supporting sources
…Consider Plan to Get Guns Off Streets, Hartford Courant, Apr. 29, 1992, p. A4; penalties imposed on parents or guardians for failure to supervise the child, see, e. g. , Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, § 858 (Supp. 1995) (fining parents who allow students to possess firearm at school); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1312 (Supp. 1992) (misdemeanor…