Title: Southeast Apartments Management v. Jackman

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  All the Justices 
 
 
SOUTHEAST APARTMENTS MANAGEMENT, 
INC., ET AL. 
 
 
 
OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON 
v.  Record No. 981000 
February 26, 1999 
 
KIMBERLY M. JACKMAN 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 
Frederick B. Lowe, Judge 
 
 
In this tort action, we consider whether the trial court 
erred in ruling that a jury question was presented on a tenant's 
claims that an owner of leased premises breached either its duty 
to exercise reasonable care in the hiring of its employee, the 
tortfeasor, or its duty to exercise reasonable care in the 
retention of the employee. 
 
On July 27, 1996, appellee Kimberly M. Jackman was a tenant 
in the Kings Arms Apartments in Virginia Beach, owned by 
appellant Southeast Mortgage and Investment Corporation and 
managed by appellant Southeast Apartments Management, Inc. 
(collectively, the owner).  At the time, the owner employed one 
Douglas Turner as the Apartments' "maintenance supervisor;" he 
had been so employed for approximately two months. 
 
Near 5:00 a.m. on July 27, the tenant was asleep in her 
upstairs bedroom holding her infant son.  The only other 
occupant of the apartment was an older son, two years of age.  
She awoke and saw a man standing in the hallway.  Identifying 
himself as "the maintenance man," Turner "came over," sat next 
to the tenant on her bed, said "he had had quite a bit to 
drink," and started rubbing her thigh.  He arose in response to 
her pleas for him to leave, "walked down the stairs," and left 
the premises.  "Scared," the tenant fled with her children to 
her parents' home and called the police. 
 
Subsequently, the tenant filed the present action for 
damages, charging the owner with "negligent hiring and 
retention" of Turner.  During the trial, the court instructed 
the jury on those issues and on proximate cause.  The jury found 
in favor of the tenant, fixing her damages at $12,500.  The 
trial court entered judgment on the verdict in a February 1998 
order, from which we awarded the owner this appeal. 
 
The owner contends the trial court erred, first, in failing 
to rule, as a matter of law, that the tenant's evidence was 
insufficient to create a prima facie case of either negligent 
hiring or negligent retention, and, second, in failing to rule 
that any such negligence was not a proximate cause of the 
tortious act.  Because of the view we take of the case, we do 
not reach the question of proximate cause. 
 
Applying settled principles of appellate review, we shall 
summarize the evidence in the light most favorable to the 
tenant, who comes to this Court armed with a jury's verdict 
confirmed by the trial judge. 
 
2
 
First, we shall relate the facts on the hiring aspect of 
this case.  Turner was among several applicants for the 
advertised job of "maintenance supervisor" for the 199-unit 
apartment complex.  The duties of the position included assuring 
the proper functioning of the apartment utilities, "keep[ing] up 
the grounds," and being "on call 24 hours a day." 
 
Turner, 31 years of age, had submitted a detailed 
application, including a "very professionally printed" personal 
resume.  He was interviewed by Melanie L. Ayscue, the apartment 
"resident manager," and by the owner's "regional manager." 
 
As part of the application process, Turner executed a 
release authorizing inquiry into his work, credit, and 
educational history, as may be disclosed through his personal 
references and public records.  Ayscue attempted to talk with 
six persons Turner had listed as personal references and was 
able to speak with only two of them.  They gave Turner good 
recommendations. 
 
Ayscue performed a "background check" on Turner, but did 
not request a copy of his "criminal record."  She testified that 
the "law" did not require her "to do a criminal background 
check."  In the "Behavioral History" portion of the application, 
Turner indicated that of the 34 crimes listed, he had committed 
only "Traffic Violations."  Ayscue administered a behavioral 
test to him, graded by a third party, and he scored "fine." 
 
3
 
Upon completion of the application process, Ayscue employed 
Turner with the regional manager's approval.  After he was 
hired, Turner lived in one of the apartments and was furnished a 
"master key" that could open a "percentage of the apartments." 
 
Next, we shall relate the facts on the retention aspect of 
the case.  Ayscue told the detective who investigated the 
assault on the tenant that Ayscue, based on the "appearance" 
Turner had when "he came to work mornings, . . . suspected that 
he either had an alcohol or drug abuse problem," and that Ayscue 
"had heard him talking to the assistant property manager about 
the females in the apartment complex that he thought were 
attractive that he was interested in dating."  Ayscue testified 
Turner came to the apartment office one Saturday before the 
incident and stated to her "he had one beer at a party."  Ayscue 
said she would not allow Turner to leave the office that 
afternoon to answer any maintenance "calls." 
 
The tenant testified that, after the incident, Ayscue and 
the apartment assistant manager remarked "about how [Turner] had 
mentioned getting phone numbers of single women that had lived 
in the apartment."  Ayscue testified that Turner asked her for 
the telephone number of a resident named "Virginia," which 
Ayscue assumed was in connection with a request for maintenance.  
The assistant manager testified that Turner asked for the 
telephone number of a "Ginger," a single woman who resided in 
 
4
the apartment, and that "an older lady who had a Cocker Spaniel" 
had "invited him out." 
 
The tenant also stated that Ayscue "had mentioned to me how 
during their lunch breaks they used to hide from him because he 
was so obnoxious, he tried to follow them everywhere they went.  
So they would sneak out for lunch so he wouldn't go with them." 
 
This Court has recognized the independent tort of negligent 
hiring.  J. . . v. Victory Tabernacle Baptist Church, 236 Va. 
206, 208-09, 372 S.E.2d 391, 393 (1988); Davis v. Merrill, 133 
Va. 69, 78-81, 112 S.E. 628, 631-32 (1922).  The cause of action 
is based on the principle that one who conducts an activity 
through employees is subject to liability for harm resulting 
from the employer's conduct if the employer is negligent in the 
hiring of an improper person in work involving an unreasonable 
risk of harm to others.  Ponticas v. K.M.S. Invs., 331 N.W.2d 
907, 911 (Minn. 1983).  Accord, Victory Tabernacle Baptist 
Church, 236 Va. at 211, 372 S.E.2d at 394.  See John H. Derrick, 
Annotation, Landlord's Tort Liability to Tenant for Personal 
Injury or Property Damage Resulting from Criminal Conduct of 
Employee, 38 A.L.R.4th 240 (1985).  "Liability is predicated on 
the negligence of an employer in placing a person with known 
propensities, or propensities which should have been discovered 
by reasonable investigation, in an employment position in which, 
because of the circumstances of the employment, it should have 
 
5
been foreseeable that the hired individual posed a threat of 
injury to others."  Ponticas, 331 N.W.2d at 911. 
 
This Court also has recognized the independent tort of 
negligent retention.  Philip Morris Inc. v. Emerson, 235 Va. 
380, 401, 368 S.E.2d 268, 279 (1988); Norfolk Protestant Hosp. 
v. Plunkett, 162 Va. 151, 156, 173 S.E. 363, 365 (1934).  As 
applicable to the facts of the present case, this cause of 
action is based on the principle that an employer owning leased 
premises is subject to liability for harm resulting from the 
employer's negligence in retaining a dangerous employee who the 
employer knew or should have known was dangerous and likely to 
harm tenants.  Mallory v. O'Neil, 69 So.2d 313, 315 (Fla. 1954).  
See Svacek v. Shelley, 359 P.2d 127, 131 (Alaska 1961). 
 
Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of this 
case, we hold the tenant's evidence is wholly insufficient to 
make out a prima facie case of either negligent hiring or 
negligent retention. 
 
During the hiring process, the owner received a detailed 
application containing information about Turner's personal 
background, work experience, and behavioral history.  None of 
this information gave a hint that Turner may have had a 
propensity to molest women.  Ayscue discussed Turner's 
qualifications with two persons who formerly supervised his 
work; they recommended him for employment and furnished no 
 
6
information that Turner may have posed a threat of committing 
assaults upon female tenants. 
 
In connection with her "background check," Ayscue did not 
investigate Turner's prior criminal record, if any; under these 
facts, she was not obligated to do so in the exercise of 
reasonable care.  In the application, Turner represented that he 
had "absolutely never engaged" in 34 types of criminal behavior, 
except traffic violations.  Additionally, in the application he 
also denied conviction "in the past seven years" of 28 listed 
felonies. 
 
The tenant dwells on a part of the opening statement of the 
owner's attorney.  He said that a "criminal records check" would 
have disclosed Turner "wrote a bad check for $l.29" and another 
"for $9" in Georgia when he was 20 years of age.  Even if this 
can be considered part of the evidence in the case, which it 
cannot, it is the only indication in the entire record that 
Turner had been convicted of non-traffic offenses.  Even if the 
owner had learned of these petty offenses, it would not have 
been alerted to the fact that Turner would engage in criminal 
sexual activity. 
 
In sum, there are no facts that would have put the owner on 
notice that its hiring of Turner might reasonably lead to a pre-
dawn assault on the tenant. 
 
7
 
While retaining Turner during his two-month tenure before 
the incident in question, the owner did not know, nor should it 
have known, in the exercise of reasonable care, that Turner was 
dangerous and likely to harm tenants.  The fact there was a 
"suspicion" Turner may have had an alcohol or drug "problem," 
and may have had an attraction for single women, did not render 
this 31-year-old single man a dangerous employee and one likely 
to commit sexual assaults.  Nor does the fact that an employee 
is "obnoxious," in the opinion of other employees, furnish 
notice to an owner exercising reasonable care that the employee 
is likely to sexually assault tenants. 
 
Consequently, we are of opinion that the trial court erred 
in refusing to rule, as a matter of law, that the tenant failed 
to establish a prima facie case of negligent hiring or 
retention.  Therefore, we will reverse the judgment below, set 
aside the verdict in favor of the tenant, and enter final 
judgment here in favor of the owner. 
Reversed and final judgment. 
 
8