Existence of Duty in Negligence Matter Hinges on the Relationship Between the Parties.

Candice Matthews, as fiduciary of the Estate of Tanisha M. Matthews and Asiah T. Matthews, appealed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Concentra Health Services, Inc., a drug testing company. According to the appellants, Concentra failed to exercise reasonable care in collecting the urine specimen by failing to install measures to detect the use of synthetic urine, which constituted a breach of the duty Concentra owed the appellants as members of the general public. Said employee of Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. was driving under the influence when he caused an accident, killing Tanisha and severely injuring Asiah. Concentra had provided drug testing throughout the employee’s employment with Sunbelt, failing to detect his use of synthetic urine on the tests. The appellants argue that under Ohio law, an actor, Concentra, in charge of a person with dangerous propensities, the employee, owes a duty to control such a person. The appellants argue that Concentra was “in charge” of the employee during the drug testing procedures. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that there was no special relationship between Concentra and the appellants which would give rise to a legal duty to protect. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}