Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County

Davis vs. Doña Ana County Name: Instructor: Course title: Date: What was the legal issue in this case? In the case where the plaintiff sued the county of Dona Ana, the legal issue was negligent misrepresentation (Dona Ana County, 2012). This was in reference to the recommendation letter written by two officers from the county Detention Centre. Steele and Mochen took upon themselves to write that Mr. Herrera was an exceptional employee, which was misinforming to the Mesilla Valley Hospital, who hired him to that effect (Mesilla Valley Hospital, 2012). Previously female inmates at the detention Centre had accused Herrera of sexual assaults. He resigned before seeking disciplinary action, which Steele in a previous report had advocated. In the letter, Steele and Mochen omitted that, during the time they worked with the Herrera, he was a suspected sexual offender. Why does the court conclude that Dona Ana County could be held for negligent referral (misrepresentation)? There is general proposition that everyone should practice proper care to ensure the safety of others. They drew reference to the recent case that took place in California Supreme Court involving a suspected a sex offender. According to the evidence presented in court, Randi had been recommended by different schools from the district for a vice-principal position. All of the schools that recommended him for the job had information that incriminated Randi as a sex offender, but still went ahead and refer him for the position, having in mind the danger he posed to the children at the school. In a unanimous adoption by the court, the officials who recommended Rand for the position were found guilty of an offence (Barada Associates Inc, 2012). They owed the duty to care for the students, by exposing them to bodily harm that was foreseeable. In the case of Herrera, the county official could have refused to recommend him by remaining silent. Instead, they choose to write him a recommendation letter, omitting the fact that he was a sexual predator. In the letter, they further made a heinous claim, that Herrera was an employee of high caliber, who is hard to find. It was Steele and Mochen who had reported previously that Herrera should relieved of his duties without pay. The court, therefore, would not take any excuse from the officers, for not drawing the parallels and proceed with caution when referring Herrera. In its decision, the court found that Steele and Mochen owed the duty of care to the plaintiff being a third party. Should it have mattered that the former employer’s investigation was not able to confirm all of the allegations against Herrera? Explain your answer. According to the report written by Steele and Mochen who were the supervisors to Herrera at County Detention Centre, his performance and conduct were suspect and questionable. It was also in the report that Herrera was said to have had inappropriate sexual habits with female inmates that took several forms. Apparently, Herrera was treated to sexua...