I have to go through the issues of negligence every year for my EMT continuing education.
To be liable for negligence, (1) there must be a duty of care, (2) the person breech the duty of the duty of care, (3) there must be damages, and (4) the breech of care must be the cause of, or at least contribute to, the damages.
Notaries have a duty of care, defined by law, to anyone who relies on our notarial acts. The notary might have an extra duty of care defined in the contract with the hiring party. The signing service only has a duty of care to whoever it contracted with, and the duty is defined in the contract.
If things went as they usually do, it appears the notary breached the duty of care by not obtaining a thumbprint. The other carelessness would be harder to prove, unless the signer is caught and doesn't look anything like the person who's name appeared in the POA and the ID. The signing service probably didn't breech their duty of care.
The question implies, but does not specifically say, there were damages.
Whether or not the notary's breech caused the damages depends on what happened. If the POA was a total fake, but the person who appeared before the notary really was named whatever it said on the POA and ID, and the crook was caught, then the notary's breech did not cause the damage and the notary should not be financially liable. If the crook got away, the notary might have some liability, because if there were a thumbprint, it might help catch the crook (or it might not).
If there really was a POA, the person named in the POA did not appear, and an imposter did appear, the notary knows in his/her heart he/she is liable, but it could be hard to prove, unless the crook was caught and the ID is recovered. After all, the ID may have been a good fake that no notary could have spotted. If the crook wasn't caught, the thumbprint might have helped catch the crook so the notary would be partly liable.
The notary would be subject to a fine or civil penalty from the SOS for not collecting the thumbprint. |
| Messages in this Thread |
|  Hypothetical, please weigh in on this if you care to -  Cheryl Elliott on 1/17/20 3:30pm |
|  Re: Hypothetical, please weigh in on this if you care to - Luckydog on 1/17/20 3:48pm |
| Ca fine - Clem/CA on 1/17/20 3:54pm |
| QUERIE - Cheryl Elliott on 1/17/20 4:28pm |
|  Re: QUERIE - Calnotary on 1/17/20 4:31pm |
|  I agree--100% on the notary! ;-( n/m - MW/VA on 1/17/20 6:32pm |
 | Re: QUERIE - VT_Syrup on 1/17/20 5:08pm |
| Re: Hypothetical, please weigh in on this if you care to - Expeditor on 1/17/20 7:30pm |
| Re: Hypothetical, please weigh in on this if you care to - JanetK_CA on 1/17/20 9:26pm |
| Re: Hypothetical, please weigh in on this if you care to - pdl/cali on 1/17/20 11:49pm |
| Re: Hypothetical, please weigh in on this if you care to - VT_Syrup on 1/18/20 6:54am |
| Re: Hypothetical, please weigh in on this if you care to - Expeditor on 1/18/20 3:09pm |
| Re: Hypothetical, please weigh in on this if you care to - Cheryl Elliott on 1/18/20 8:58am |
| Re: Hypothetical, please weigh in on this if you care to - Yoli/CA on 1/18/20 12:03pm |
| Re: Hypothetical, please weigh in on this if you care to - Yoli/CA on 1/18/20 12:13pm |
|  Deception led to more lies, but the notary rolled over on - Cheryl Elliott on 1/19/20 8:33am |
|  Re: Deception led to more lies, but the notary rolled over on - JanetK_CA on 1/19/20 3:34pm |
| Part of the reason Skylar wanted the yacht - Cheryl Elliott on 1/20/20 12:49pm |
| Re: Hypothetical - Signerbill on 1/18/20 12:25pm |
