Opinion ID: 1163327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cause of action for respondeat superior.

Text: [R]espondeat superior liability attaches only when the employee is under the control of the employer and when the act is within the scope of employment. Molino v. Asher, 96 Nev. 814, 817, 618 P.2d 878, 879 (1980). Therefore, an actionable claim on a theory of respondeat superior requires proof that (1) the actor at issue was an employee, and (2) the action complained of occurred within the scope of the actor's employment.
This court has stated that [t]he employer can be vicariously responsible only for the acts of his employees not someone else, and one way of establishing the employment relationship is to determine when the `employee' is under the control of the `employer.'  National Convenience Stores v. Fantauzzi, 94 Nev. 655, 657, 584 P.2d 689, 691 (1978). This element of control requires that the employer `have control and direction not only of the employment to which the contract relates but also of all of its details and the method of performing the work....' Kennel v. Carson City School District, 738 F.Supp. 376, 378 (D.Nev.1990) (quoting 53 Am.Jur.2d Master and Servant § 2 (1970)). However, in the situation where a property owner hires security personnel to protect his or her premises and patrons, that property owner has a personal and nondelegable duty to provide responsible security personnel. Therefore, we conclude as a matter of law that the security personnel are the employees of the property owner, even if the property owner engaged a third party to hire the security personnel. In such a situation, we find an employer-employee relationship without evaluating whether the security personnel were under the control of the property owner, noting that the control analysis is only one of the methods available to establish such a relationship. [4] National Convenience Stores, 94 Nev. at 657, 584 P.2d at 691. In reaching this conclusion, we follow the ruling in Peachtree-Cain Co. v. McBee, 170 Ga.App. 38, 316 S.E.2d 9 (1984), aff'd, 254 Ga. 91, 327 S.E.2d 188 (1985). In Peachtree-Cain Co., the Peachtree Company owned a shopping center called the Peachtree Center. Peachtree Center Management Company, a separate corporation, managed the Peachtree Center and contracted with American Building Maintenance Company to provide and manage security personnel for the property. All of these parties were sued by a patron who claimed to have been falsely arrested by a security guard. Peachtree Company moved for summary judgment on the ground that it could not be liable for the intentional torts of the independent security agent. The court denied the motion for summary judgment, concluding that: As owners of the Peachtree Center complex that had undertaken to obtain security services, their duty to their invitees to provide responsible agents was personal and non-delegable, and thus it did not matter that the owners had an additional filter, i.e., the Peachtree Center Management Company, between themselves and the actual security guard. Because that duty was personal and non-delegable, a recovery based upon a breach of that duty would not constitute imposition of liability without fault. To hold that the appellants are immune from vicarious liability in these cases would, as noted above, present opportunities for gross injustice which we will not here sanction. Peachtree-Cain Co., 316 S.E.2d at 11 (citations omitted); see Zentko v. G.M. McKelvey Co., 88 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ohio Ct.App.1948) (stating that where an owner of an operation or enterprise undertakes to obtain security services, the owner's security duties are personal and nondelegable, and where the owner arranges for and accepts the services, the relationship of master and servant exists). Adams v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 144 Misc. 27, 257 N.Y.S. 776, 781 (App.Div.1932) (A store owner who places a detective agency on his premises for the purpose of protecting his property by various means, including arrests, should not be immune from responsibility to an innocent victim of a false arrest made by the detective agency, even as an independent contractor.); Dupree v. Piggly Wiggly Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 542 S.W.2d 882, 888 (Tex. Ct.App.1976) (because of the `personal character' of duties owed to the public by one adopting measures to protect his property, owners and operators of enterprises cannot, by securing special personnel through an independent contractor for the purposes of protecting property, obtain immunity from liability for at least the intentional torts of the protecting agency or its employees.); see also Malvo v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., 512 P.2d 575 (Alaska 1973); Noble v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 33 Cal.App.3d 654, 109 Cal.Rptr. 269, 274 (1973); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Kelly, 448 A.2d 856, 861 n. 12 (D.C.1982) (recognizing the rule but not reaching the issue for other reasons); Hendricks v. Leslie Fay, Inc., 273 N.C. 59, 159 S.E.2d 362, 366-67 (1968); Moore v. Target Stores, Inc., 571 P.2d 1236, 1240 (Okla.Ct. App.1977). Similarly, in the instant case, Sun Harbor undertook to obtain security services, a personal and non-delegable duty, and it did not matter that the owners of Sun Harbor had an additional filter, i.e., Bigelow, between themselves and the actual security guard. Additionally, Sun Harbor arranged for and accepted the security services of Thamar, and therefore the relationship of master and servant (or employer-employee) existed between Sun Harbor and the security guards.
Generally, whether an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment is a question for the trier of fact, but where undisputed evidence exists concerning the employee's status at the time of the tortious act, the issue may be resolved as a matter of law. Evans v. Southwest Gas, 108 Nev. 1002, 1004, 842 P.2d 719, 721 (1992). This court has held that in order for an employer to be liable for the intentional tort of an employee, that tort must occur within the scope of the task assigned to the employee. Prell Hotel Corp. v. Antonacci, 86 Nev. 390, 391, 469 P.2d 399, 400 (1970). [I]f the employee's tort is truly an independent venture of his own and not committed in the course of the very task assigned to him, the employer is not liable. Id. (holding that an employer was vicariously liable when the employee, a blackjack dealer, hit a customer in the face while dealing a game because the assault occurred within the scope of the task assigned to the dealer, that of dealing blackjack). But see J.C. Penney Co. v. Gravelle, 62 Nev. 434, 449-50, 155 P.2d 477, 481-82 (1944) (concluding that an on-duty security guard acted outside the scope of his employment when he punched Gravelle because Gravelle had prevented the guard from catching a shoplifter; the guard's acts were done to punish Gravelle for his interference and not in order to catch the thief or to retrieve the stolen merchandise, and the guard's actions were clearly disconnected from the line of his duty to his employer). Vernon produced evidence that at the time Thamar shot Londa, he was still actively guarding the premises even though he was off duty, and that the off-duty security officers carried radios and responded to emergency situations. Furthermore, the record indicates that after Thamar shot Londa, he used his radio to call the Sun Harbor security dispatcher to report that his girl-friend had been shot, and Aliano, an off-duty security guard, heard the call on his radio, went to Thamar's location, and handcuffed Thamar until the police arrived. Conversely, Olsen's affidavit presented evidence that off-duty security guards were not required to remain in radio contact with Sun Harbor or respond to emergency calls, and that their free time was their own. This indicates that when Thamar was off duty he was no longer engaged in the business of or service of his employer and Sun Harbor would not be liable. This conflicting evidence regarding whether Thamar was still acting within the scope of his employment when he killed Londa creates a genuine issue of material fact, and we conclude that it was improper for the district court to grant summary judgment on the respondeat superior cause of action.