Hernandez v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
2011 Va. Cir. LEXIS 252
Norfolk Cir. Ct.2011Background
- This matter centers on Lowe's demurrer to plaintiff Hernandez's first amended complaint, challenging negligent supervision and/or negligent training theories under Virginia law.
- Plaintiff alleges Lowe's and its employee Barnett failed to train and supervise, causing injury to Hernandez.
- OSHA regulations cited by plaintiff do not create a private action or establish negligence per se.
- Virginia Supreme Court in Dowdy held no duty of employer to supervise under those specific circumstances; circuit courts have largely followed that view.
- The court finds Dowdy distinguishable and analyzes whether negligent supervision or training may apply to a third-party injury scenario, sustaining the demurrer on negligent training and potentially allowing negligent supervision to proceed with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to supervise or train in Virginia doctrine | Hernandez contends employer owes duty to supervise/train given foreseeable risks to customers. | Lowe's asserts no Virginia duty to supervise or train in this context. | No duty to supervise/train recognized at issue; training claim demurred, supervision potential with amendment |
| Adequacy of pleading for negligent supervision vs negligent training | Facts show negligent supervision may be viable; training requires more specifics. | Dowdy forecloses such claims in Virginia absent distinguishable facts; training cannot proceed as pleaded. | Negligent supervision could proceed; negligent training sustained with leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. v. Dowdy, 235 Va. 55 (1988) (court declined to recognize a duty of employer to supervise under these circumstances)
- Southern States Grain Marketing Coop. v. Garber, 205 Va. 757 (1965) (recognizes general duty to use ordinary care; negligent hiring/retention developed from that duty)