CASE ANALYSIS

Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña

Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña

1. What was the legal issue in this case?

The legal issue in the case of Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County involved acts of ill-will which could have been avoided. While employed as a detention officer at the Dona Ana County Detention Center, Joseph Herrera, was accused of unsuitable sexual behavior with female prison inmates and of exchanging favors for sex acts. Herrera's supervisor, Frank Steele, investigated the charges and advised Herrera that he would be reprimanded. Herrera resigned to avoid disciplinary action. Six days later, Steele wrote a recommendation letter on Herrera's behalf that portrayed him as an “excellent employee” and told prospective employers: “I am confident that you would find [Herrera] to be an excellent employee.” (Walsh, 2010, p.149). Also, constructive verbal references were made by another Detention Center supervisor. Plaintiff sued the County for negligent misrepresentation alleging that the misinformation provided by the Detention Center employees, Steele and Mochen, actually caused Herrera to be hired at MVH and Plaintiff to be assaulted.

The legal issue in this case is whether an employer who gives a reference and/or a recommendation rather than remaining silent has a “duty of care” to a third party if that employer has knowledge of a foreseeable issue. Knowing someone has the potential to commit a crime but not deterring that act is just as guilty as committing the crime, and with this case that employees character is dramatically misrepresented in the recommendation letter and it caused someone else harm.

I find this case especially interesting, it raises the question, as private citizens are we responsible for showing a duty of care with a complete stranger, and will we be held liable? Duties of care seems to coincide with moral law, are we being upstanding citizens to one another, are we following the law of the land, “love thy neighbor” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

2. Why does the court conclude that Doña Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation)?

The court concludes that Doña Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation) because of the positive references. Herrera acquired a position as a mental health technician at a psychiatric care hospital. Roughly six weeks later, he sexually assaulted and physically abused a female patient.

Relying ...