Administrative and Supervisory Liability (232)

Theories of Supervisory Liability
Name
Institutional Affiliation
THEORIES OF SUPERVISORY LIABILITY
Supervisory liability can be incurred when a supervisor fails to carry out his/her supervisory duties either by directly participating in a wrongful action or failing to correct a reported violation or was negligent in managing an officer or subordinate who was responsible for an unlawful condition (Ross, 2013).
There are at least seven theories that support supervisory liability, and they are (1) negligent hiring, (2) negligent assessment, (3) negligent entrustment, (4) failure to direct, (5) failure to supervise, (6) failure to discipline, (7) failure to train. Application of one of the theories does not exclude the possibility to use any other one because those are not mutually exclusive (Ross, 2013). Thus, a supervisor can use any or all of these theories.
Negligent hiring asserts that constitutional violation would not have occurred if the administrator had adequately carried out a thorough screening of the guilty officer before hiring (Ross, 2013). Thus, if the officer was fit or unfit for employment, liability arises when an officer unfit for employment is known by the employer or should have been known from background checks (Ross, 2013). For this liability to hold a plaintiff must establish a secure connection between the background of the officer charged and the alleged violation just like the case of the board of commissioners of Bryan County vs. Brown.
Negligent assessment occurs if the supervisor assigns a person whose experience and knowledge does not fit the job.

Liability could arise if the administrator fails to address this situation either by removing the employee from that position or by moving him or her to a less critical position (Ross, 2013).
Negligent entrustment occurs when the supervisor fails to adequately supervise or control the custody, use of an employee’s equipment; this differs from negligent assessment because it refers to the particular equipment use. Liability could arise if a supervisor fails to direct the proper use of an impact weapon in a chaotic situation and it led to fatal injury or death of a prisoner (Ross, 2013).
Failure to direct refers to the failure of an employer to inform his or her employees of the requirements and limits of the job, this can also be seen as a failure to publicize policies and procedures of the job (Ross, 2013).
Failure to supervise subordinates happens when the supervisors fail to take responsibility for overseeing their employees activities; an example is when a supervisor tolerates the physical abuse of arrestees or prisoners, racial discrimination, and deprivation of the individual’s rights (Ross, 2013).
Failure to discipline is when the supervisor fails to act on complaints about his or her employees, a supervisor is within his or her rights to take appropriate steps to discipline or terminate an employee unfit for the job (Ross, 2013).
Failure to train is when an administrator loses to train or improperly trains an employee about the rudiments of the job; an example could be improper training on how to restrain a prisoner which could lead to severe injuries or even death.
The risk of supervisory liability can be reduced by performing analysis to identify problems, carrying out proper training (Ross, 2013) and be attentive to the overall of duties of being a supervisor as discussed above.
Reference
Ross D.L (2013). Civil Liability in Criminal Justice 6th edition. Ohio, Anderson, Elsevier Inc.