It is clear from the above that the duty to supervise is only triggered under the common law where the employer had notice of incompetence or misconduct. See 30 C.J.S. Employer — Employee §205, at 254 (2007); see also Keller v. Koca, 111 P.3d 445, 448 (Colo. 2005) (“Thus, where a plaintiff asserts a claim for negligent supervision, the question of whether the employer o the scope of that duty the majority seek to impose is much too broad. As a practical matter, to prevent any mistake or criminal behavior or “harm to the public” (as the trial court said), Kinko’s would need supervisors for the supervisors and so on and so on. I believe this would put an unsupportable burden on defendant and violate one of the tenets for imposition of a duty. Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1, 17 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Could the Secretary of State be sued for
holding no duty and noting that foreseeability bears on the scope of a duty and not whether it exists in the first place holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that in determining whether to impose a duty the following factors must be balanced 1 the relationship between the parties 2 the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured and 3 public policy concerns holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant holding that in determining whether a duty exists a court should consider the following factors 1 the reasonable foreseeability of injury 2 the reasonable likelihood of injury 3 the magnitude of the burden that guarding against injury places on the defendant and 4 the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant emphasis added