## Facts

- Honeywell employed Randy Landin from 1977 to 1979 and again from 1984 to 1988.
- Between employments, Landin was imprisoned for strangling to death Nancy Miller, a Honeywell coworker.
- Honeywell rehired Landin in 1984 as a custodian; he was later transferred between facilities due to workplace confrontations.
- In April 1988, Kathleen M. Nesser was assigned to Landin’s maintenance crew; they socialized outside work until Nesser ended the relationship after Landin expressed romantic interest.
- Landin then harassed and threatened Nesser at work and at home; Nesser reported the conduct to her supervisor and requested a transfer.
- On July 1, 1988, Nesser found a death threat scratched on her locker; Landin stopped reporting to work and formally resigned on July 11, 1988.
- On July 19, 1988, about six hours after Nesser’s shift, Landin shot and killed her in her driveway; he was convicted of first-degree murder.
- Nesser’s trustee brought a wrongful-death suit against Honeywell asserting negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision; Honeywell sought summary judgment and, for the motion, stipulated it failed to use reasonable care in hiring and supervising Landin but denied any legal duty to Nesser.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer owed a duty of reasonable care under negligent hiring where the employee later murdered a coworker off-premises and after resignation.
2. Whether an employer owed a duty of reasonable care under negligent supervision for an off-premises killing occurring outside the course and scope of employment and after the employee resigned.
3. Whether an employer owed a duty of reasonable care under negligent retention when it knew or should have known the employee was dangerous and threats toward the victim arose while the employee remained employed.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Honeywell on negligent hiring.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Honeywell on negligent supervision.
- The court reversed summary judgment for Honeywell on negligent retention and remanded for further proceedings on breach and proximate cause.
- The court held that, for negligent retention, an employer’s duty of reasonable care is not limited to conduct within the scope of employment or on the employer’s premises.

## Legal Principles

- Duty is a threshold negligence question decided as a matter of law; foreseeability of harm is central to the duty analysis.
- Negligent hiring focuses on risks tied to the employee’s job-related functions and whether the employment creates a special, job-created risk to others.
- Negligent supervision generally concerns an employer’s duty to control employees acting within the course and scope of employment or on the employer’s premises, often where employment-conferred authority is misused.
- Negligent retention imposes direct liability when an employer retains an employee it knows or should know is unfit or dangerous, and retention creates a foreseeable risk of harm.
- In negligent retention, the duty of reasonable care may extend to foreseeable injuries occurring off-premises and outside working hours when the employer had notice of dangerous propensities and escalating threats while the employee was still employed.

## Conclusion

The court held that the off-premises, after-hours murder did not support negligent hiring or supervision on these facts, but it could support negligent retention because the employer allegedly knew of the employee’s violent history and escalating threats while continuing to employ him, making serious harm to the victim foreseeable.


Yunker v. Honeywell, Inc., 496 N.W.2d 419 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)