Should National have reasonably known about Livigni's "violent-related" problems? And if so, did it act negligently in retaining him as an employee?

This is a difficult question. National's management knew Livigni threw an empty milk case at a fellow employee some seven years before the incident involving the battery of the four-year-old child. There were conflicting accounts of that altercation. Livigni also had a good work record. Fellow employees, but not management, knew of the incident involving the disciplining and injury to Livigni's 13-year-old son. The court was not willing to accept the employer's denial that it knew or should have known of this criminal misconduct. The court in affect obligates co-workers to tell higher authorities of their knowledge of problem employees. Thus, the court determined that National should have known about Livigni's violent-related problems. It was a negligent act to retain such an employee as a store manager.