When an ex sets an employee on fire at work, is the employer liable for not stopping it?

The facts of this case are gut-wrenching. A former employee bypasses security, sneaks into a workplace, and brutally attacks his ex—an employee sitting at her desk. The injuries were horrific. The question for the court wasn’t whether this was awful (it was), but whether the employer could be held liable under negligence law for failing to prevent it.

The answer? No. Here’s why.

---

TL;DR: A federal appellate court held that an employer was not liable for negligence after a former employee violently attacked a current worker at the facility. The court reasoned that—even if there were lapses in security—this calculated, violent act was so bizarre and unforeseeable that it broke the chain of causation. Under state law, no reasonable jury could find that the employer should have predicted this attack. So, the employer wasn’t on the hook.

---

The Facts Were Horrific

The plaintiff worked in customer service and payroll. Several years earlier, she had a brief relationship with the assailant, a former driver who had since been terminated. After the relationship ended, he became hostile and began sending threatening messages, though the plaintiff never reported them to her employer.

Roughly a year later, the assailant rented a car, put on his old company sweatshirt and a freezer suit, and waited outside the workplace. When an employee opened a badge-access door, he followed them inside. He located the plaintiff at her desk, doused her with gasoline, and set her on fire. Then he fled.

He was later convicted of attempted murder and arson and sentenced to prison.

The Lawsuit and Ruling

The plaintiff sued her employer for:

• Negligence
• Loss of parental consortium (on behalf of her child)

She claimed the company:

• Allowed ex-employees to keep uniforms.
• Didn’t properly enforce badge-access security.
• Failed to station guards or monitor cameras in real time.
• Let doors get propped open.

The district court granted summary judgment to the employer. The appeals court affirmed.

The Court’s Analysis: Proximate Cause Breaks Down

The court assumed—without deciding—that the employer may have owed a duty and breached it. But it focused on proximate cause, which requires that the harm be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.

The court explained that:

No prudent mind would conclude that the company’s policies made it foreseeable that a former employee would sneak in and set a current employee on fire.

The attack was labeled “freakish,” “extraordinary,” and “utterly unpredictable in light of common human experience.” Even taking the facts in the plaintiff’s favor, the court found that the criminal act was so unusual and calculated that it broke the chain of causation. That ended both the negligence and consortium claims.

What Employers Should Know

• Security matters—but there’s a legal line. Lapses in access control, uniform return, or surveillance don’t automatically make an employer liable when a third party commits a crime.
• Foreseeability is key—and not just in Florida. Many states take a similar approach. For example, in Illinois, courts often hold that employers aren’t liable for injuries caused by unforeseeable criminal acts. Michigan looks at whether the specific type of harm was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct. And Georgia generally treats third-party crimes as breaking the causal chain—unless the employer had reason to anticipate the risk. Across many jurisdictions, if the harm is too unusual or calculated, negligence claims typically fail on proximate cause.
• Don’t just rely solely on legal standards. While the employer avoided liability in court, the case is a reminder that real people experience devastating trauma. Review your policies not just for legal coverage, but for practical protection.

Final Thought

Courts draw hard lines around foreseeability for good reason. But employers shouldn’t mistake legal absolution for operational immunity. Liability may end where unpredictability begins—but leadership, culture, and safety expectations extend well beyond that line.