'Davis V the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County Case Essay\r'

'The plaintiff, Davis is suing Dona Ana County. The plaintiff was a patient at Mesilla vale Hospital (MVH) in their inpatient cordial facility, while she was in their cargon unrivaled of the mental health technicians, Joseph Herrera sexually assaulted her. She is suing the County of Dona Ana, because Herrera utilise to be a detention serjeant for the county, while employed there he was name to have been sexually harassing and abusing young-bearing(prenominal) inmates.\r\nHis superiors Steele and Mochen were aware of his mis manoeuvres and were planning on suspending him, nonetheless prior to the suspension Herrera resigned. Upon his resignation Herrera asked his superiors for a earn of pass, he was given a garner of recommendation stating that he was an model(prenominal) employee, and one that they would hire again. The legal passing in this pillow slip is to determine whether or non the county’s letter of recommendation cause third-party harm to the plaintiff, D avis?\r\nDid the positive feedback in the letter cause MVH to hire psyche who was potentially unsafe to their patients? (Walsh, 2009). Why does the act refrain that Dona Ana County could be held li fit for hit-and-run(prenominal) referral (misrepresentation)? In this case the appeal reason that Dona Ana County could be held li equal for a abstracted referral on the basis that each citizen has a basic responsibility to non operate harm to one a nonher, and to make any(prenominal) effort to ask on harm from adventure to someone.\r\nIn this case the County did not set out the proper steps to ensure state-supported safety. Without overly speculating on all the unlike scenarios that baron or might not have played out had the County leave behindd straight cultivation, at the end of the day the County not only omitted truth; which is misleading in spite of appearance itself, provided they also falsified the information that was submitd to Herrera’s early emplo yers taking away their major power to make adepty educated decisions most his employment. In this particular case is in truth similar, to California Supreme Court case regarding Randi W. here an employee was given a hot letter of recommendation from his reason employer at a nurture even though he was known to have a record of sexual misconduct, was then chartered on at another school as vice-principle, he sexually abuse a 13 year old.\r\nIn two these cases the previous employers mislead future employers with the omissions of very(prenominal) important information as well as lying around their actual employment behavior. In both cases innocent third-parties were harmed from this. The court recognized that this referral was negligent, because they failed to stop harm from happening to someone. Krasnow, 2013). Should it have mattered that the former employer’s investigation was not able to confirm all of the allegations against Herrera? Explain your answer. In this cas e Herrera’s employers were not able to conduct an investigation to the fullest due to the detail that when he was informed that a full investigation was going to be conducted and that he would be suspended, Herrera decided to first resign. though a full investigation was not conducted the court’s decision to conclude that the County is liable for negligence is still valid.\r\nThe County had the excerption of remaining silent, had they remained silent MVH would have conduct their own background investigation more than than thoroughly, but because the County gave such praise change recommendation MVH lacked their background check. The County became negligent when they falsified information, disregarding of whether Herrera was actually found to have had any sexual misconduct, the fact that there were several(prenominal) allegations and complaints against him would make it so that he did not warrant any soma of letter of recommendation.\r\nDue to the investigation not creation fully executed it would make more sense that the County refrain from having any sort of opinion on Herrera’s feat rather than fabricating information. (Walsh, 2009). What practical implications does this decision hold? Are you convinced by the court’s claim that this ruling should not make employers more reluctant to provide references? Due to the County being sued for providing referrals, they might be reluctant along with other employers, to provide any sort of referral for future employment, because they may fear that they will be sued regardless of what they do.\r\nHowever, the court claims that employers should not be upset about providing references, because as long as the information that is being provided is true than they are not at fracture. Of course it does seem safer to near not provide a referral at all, but you do not want to punish those who have worked very hard at maintaining a commodity work history and reputation. In this burea u the court would not have found fault had the\r\nCounty just not provided a recommendation at all, if they would have just denied Herrera’s request for a letter of recommendation, they would not have been at fault for third-party harm to Davis. However, the fact that the County provided misleading information while withholding information that might have told of harmful behaviors, MVH might not have hired Herrera, and they would have had a chance to better protect their patient, but the County took that ability away from them. (Walsh, 2009).\r\n'