Case Name: PATRICIA L. EDWARDS v. TYRONE AKION and the CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1981-12-01
Citations: 304 N.C. 585
Docket Number: No. 94
Parties: PATRICIA L. EDWARDS v. TYRONE AKION and the CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 304
Pages: 585–586

Head Matter:
PATRICIA L. EDWARDS v. TYRONE AKION and the CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
No. 94
(Filed 1 December 1981)
APPEAL pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) of the decision of the Court of Appeals (Judge Barry C. Martin, with Chief Judge Morris concurring, and Judge Hill dissenting) reported at 52 N.C. App. 688, 279 S.E. 2d 894 (1981), reversing the order of summary judgment entered for the City of Raleigh by Farmer, Judge, at the 11 August 1980 Civil Session of Superior Court, WAKE County.
Plaintiff filed this action for compensatory and punitive damages as a result of personal injuries she suffered during an affray with defendant City’s employee Tyrone Akion, a refuse collector in the Sanitation Department. Plaintiff sought recovery from the City upon two theories: (1) its secondary or vicarious liability for an employee’s commission of an intentional tort and (2) its primary liability for negligent supervision of an employee. Upon a hearing of the matter, the trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment in the cause.
The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed the entry of summary judgment. In so doing, the Court held that: (1) the City’s insurance policy provided coverage for the commission of intentional torts by its employees, if such actions were committed within the scope of employment and (2) upon this record, there were material issues of fact as to whether defendant Akion committed the assault and battery upon plaintiff within the scope of his employment and whether the City had failed to supervise Akion properly on the occasion of this incident. Judge Hill dissented upon the ground that the commission of the assault was not within the scope of employment as a matter of law.
DeMent, Askew & Gaskins, by Johnny S. Gaskins, for plaintiff-appe lie e.
Teague, Campbell, Conely & Dennis, by R. B. Conely, for defendant-appe llant.
. The deposition of Dr. Carroll Mann, a neurological surgeon, disclosed that these injuries were quite severe and extensive and included some permanent brain damage.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We hereby adopt the reasoning of the Court of Appeal's opinion and affirm its decision in all respects.
Affirmed.