Opinion ID: 352427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: tort counts

Text: 11 We turn next to the counts of the complaint sounding in tort. The District Court concluded that the defendant ADT was not liable on the theory of respondeat superior and granted summary judgment accordingly. We agree that ADT would not be vicariously liable. However we reverse because ADT may be directly liable under another theory: negligent supervision of its employees. 12 We first consider IDC's argument that ADT is liable on the theory of respondeat superior. IDC argues that ADT should be liable if the torts committed by ADT's employer were foreseeable, regardless of whether the thefts were committed in furtherance of the employer's interest. In support of this proposition the IDC cites our decision in Lyon v. Carey, 174 U.S.App.D.C. 422, 533 F.2d 649 (1976). But Lyon v. Carey did not purport to establish such a rule. In the District of Columbia,  '(u)nless an assault, or other tort, is actuated in part at least by a purpose to serve a principal, the principal is not liable.'  Meyers v. National Detective Agency, Inc., 281 A.2d 435, 437 (D.C.C.A.1971), quoting M. J. Uline Co. v. Cashdan, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 59, 171 F.2d 132, 133 (1948). Nothing in Lyon v. Carey changes this rule. In the Lyon case we held that a department store may be liable for an assault committed by one of its deliverymen. The assault grew out of a dispute over payment for the delivered goods, and the lynchpin of our decision was that the dispute was originally undertaken on the employer's behalf. We noted that the employer would be liable if the assault was the outgrowth of a job-related controversy, but not if the assault was simply a personal adventure of the deliveryman . . . . Lyon v. Carey, supra, 174 U.S.App.D.C. at 424, 533 F.2d at 651. We remarked that the assault by the deliveryman was perhaps at the outer bounds of respondeat superior . . . . Id. 13 It is clear that the thefts in this case were simply a personal adventure which did not spring from any purpose to serve the employer. Hence the District Court correctly refused to impose vicarious liability upon ADT. 14 Nevertheless the District Court should not have granted defendant ADT summary judgment on the tort claims, for a jury could have held ADT directly liable for negligent supervision. 15 It is true that plaintiff IDC did not plead the theory of negligent supervision. However federal courts grant the parties the relief to which the facts entitle them, even if the proper theory has not been pled. 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2664 at 120-121 (1973), and cases cited. 16 The facts on the record to date would plainly support an inference that ADT was negligent in its supervision of Smith and Hines. It is clear that an employer may be liable for negligent breach of its duty to supervise its employees. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213(c); see W. Seavy, Law of Agency 138 (1964). And an employer has a duty to supervise those of its employees who are privileged because of their employment to enter another's property. This duty extends even to activities which, like theft, are outside the scope of employment. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317 and accompanying comments. 17 On the record established to date in this case, a jury could reasonably conclude that ADT did not exercise reasonable care to supervise its employees. The thieves were able to bypass the alarm system and enter the protected premises at will, conducting a burglary of one of ADT's customers nearly every other day and looting IDC's store ten to fifteen times. A jury might conclude from these facts that the occasional spot checks conducted by ADT were inadequate in view of the ease with which employees could conduct major thefts. Consequently, the summary judgment on the tort counts must be reversed and the case remanded for trial. The judgment is 18 Reversed in part, Affirmed in part.