Opinion ID: 1233938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Space.

Text: Samaritan further contends that since the sexual intercourse occurred after counseling had been terminated and took place away from its premises, Samaritan should not be held accountable in damages for this occurrence. Doe argues that Samaritan should be held liable for the damage resulting from the sexual intercourse, as well as the fondling which occurred during counseling sessions. A trier of fact might reasonably conclude that the sexual intercourse, which occurred roughly one month after counseling, was so connected with the tortious misuse of the transference phenomenon during counseling that it was not too far removed from authorized time and space limits. See Simmons, 805 F.2d at 1370 (negligence in mishandling of transference phenomenon leads to sexual intercourse); see also Marston, 329 N.W.2d at 311. [9] On remand, the superior court should determine the extent to which the intercourse was connected with misuse of the transference phenomenon. Inherent in our disposition of this petition is our further conclusion that Doe is not entitled to summary judgment on her respondeat superior claim given the existence of genuine issues of material fact relevant to this claim. The superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Samaritan on Doe's respondeat superior claim is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MOORE, J., dissents.