Recovery for loss of employee: Actio per quod servitium amisit?
<p>I have a course question that involves an employer whose employee is injured by a third person. Knowing that some businesses can suffer great losses with the injury or death of an employee, I Google searched (excuse me, I have not taken a legal research course yet) for cases in which employers sought recovery for the loss of an employee. I found the latin phrase from common law "Actio per quod servitium amisit" which means something like "whereby he lost the service" (of a servant, for example), but this does not appear to be used in U.S. law. There are some <a href="https://www.casemine.com/search/us?q=per%20quod%20servitium%20amisit&amp;narrowing=california&amp;sort=&amp;judge=&amp;courtType=0&amp;published=&amp;motionType=&amp;motionOutcome=&amp;year=&amp;customYearFilter=false&amp;tabName=filter" rel="nofollow noreferrer">casemine cases</a> that reference it, but they are a bit too much for me to pick apart right now. </p>

<p>My question is whether or not there is a current action similar to this one or whether, in general or under what circumstances, an employer can recover for the loss of an employee, under U.S. law.  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Recovery for loss of employee: Actio per quod servitium amisit?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That theory is obsolete in U.S. law. See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/innmco20151209337" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>National Roofing Inc., v Alstate Steel</em>, 366 P.3d 276, 280 (2015)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>the action was based on the outdated social concept that domestic
  servants were the property of their masters, id., and the assertion of
  such claims has long since been abandoned.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The court in <em>National</em> also suggests that the remedy for a plaintiff-employer's losses (akin to the ones you mention) would be available rather through a theory of <em>tortious interference with business relation</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Plaintiff has made no allegation that Defendants intentionally and
  improperly interfered with these contractual relations</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/19961155543nw2d61211147" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Anderson Plasterers v Meinecke</em>, 543 N.W.2d 612 (1996)</a> reaches a similar conclusion, further reflecting that <em>recovery under [plaintiff's] theory [of per quod servitium amisit] has been almost universally denied</em>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I have not taken a legal research course yet</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From personal experience, I can tell you that you need no such course.</p>

<p>For other cases regarding actions <em>per quod servitium amisit</em>, see the results this <a href="http://www.leagle.com/leaglesearch?all=employer&amp;exact=servitium%20amisit" rel="nofollow noreferrer">query</a> (leagle.com is a free and very useful resource for legal research).</p>

employment business