Opinion ID: 2640464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: respondeat superior liability for battery

Text: ¶ 9 Davis intentionally struck Summer's head against a shelf at the daycare facility. The issue is whether her employer, the appellee, may be held liable in damages for this intentional wrongful act. ¶ 10 To hold an employer responsible for the tort of an employee, the tortious act must be committed in the course of the employment and within the scope of the employee's authority. Hill v. McQueen, 1951 OK 47, ¶¶ 3, 4, 230 P.2d 483, 484-485. As a general rule, an assault on a third person is not within the scope of an employee's authority. Rodebush v. Oklahoma Nursing Homes, Ltd., 1993 OK 160, ¶ 12, 867 P.2d 1241, 1245. The exception to the general rule is well established. An employer may be held responsible for the tort committed by the employee where the act is incidental to and done in furtherance of the business of the employer even though the servant or agent acted in excess of the authority or willfully or maliciously committed the wrongs. Ada-Konawa Bridge Co. v. Cargo, 1932 OK 790, ¶ 31, 21 P.2d 1, 7, quoting Mansfield v. Wm. J. Burns International Detective Agency, 102 Kan. 687, 171 P. 625 (1918). This is not to say that the commission of the tort was within the scope of the employee's authority, for no authority for such commission could be conferred, but where the employee was acting within the scope of authority to do the particular thing rightfully that was subsequently done in a wrongful manner. Ada-Konawa, 1932 OK 790, ¶ 32, 21 P.2d at 7, citing Bjorkman v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 117 Kan. 420, 231 P. 1029, 1030 (1925), which quoted from Dixon v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 37 Wash. 310, 79 P. 943, 944 (1905). Rodebush summarized the exception to the general rule as applying where the act is fairly and naturally incident to the business, and is done while the servant was engaged upon the master's business and be done, although mistakenly or ill advisedly, with a view to further the master's interest, or from some impulse of emotion which naturally grew out of or was incident to the attempt to perform the master's business. Rodebush, 1993 OK 160, ¶ 12, 867 P.2d at 1245, citing Russell-Locke Super-Service v. Vaughn, 1935 OK 90, ¶ 18, 40 P.2d 1090,1094, and Ada-Konawa, 1932 OK 790, ¶ 33, 21 P.2d at 7. Rodebush added that: An employee's act is within the scope of employment if it is incident to some service being performed for the employer or arises out of an emotional response to actions being taken for the employer. Rodebush, 1993 OK 160, ¶ 12, 867 P.2d at 1245. ¶ 11 The appellee asserts, It is self-evident that the act of smashing a child's head against a shelf does not accomplish the assigned work of caring for, protecting, and nurturing. Appellee's Answer to Appellant's Petition for Certiorari, p. 4. That mischaracterizes the law concerning liability of an employer for the tort of an employee. Where an employee of a daycare center is responsible for the care of infants, some type of stress-induced temporary loss of control over one's behavior (or other psychological malfunction) over a crying baby and/or babies and the act(s) of Davis in hitting Summer's head against a shelf (the cubby) arguably involve an emotional response to actions being taken for the employer, [2] if her motivation and purpose in doing so was, in whole or in part, an attempt to quiet the crying infant. Thus, the act(s) may have been an attempt to do a rightful thing (i.e. quiet a crying child) in a wrongful manner. [3] ¶ 12 Oklahoma case law provides examples of cases involving torts for which the employer was held liable and those in which the employer was not held liable. Early in statehood the Court held that a railroad company was liable for the actions of the train auditor, who falsely imprisoned a passenger arising out of a controversy over the payment of a fare. The Court stated the general rule that a corporation, like an individual, is liable for any tort committed by its agent in the course of his employment, even though the act is done wantonly and recklessly, or was against the express orders of the company. Chicago R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Radford, 1913 OK 7, ¶ 4, 129 P. 834, 837. Other cases holding the employer liable for the tort of the employee include: Ada-Konawa Bridge Co. v. Cargo, 1932 OK 790, 21 P.2d 1 (the servant of the toll bridge company shot an automobile driver when he drove past the toll gate and failed to pay the toll); Russell-Locke Super-Service v. Vaughn, 1935 OK 90, 40 P.2d 1090 (the servant of a corporation selling and servicing automobile batteries injured the plaintiff in a fight after the servant tried to repossess a battery from the plaintiff's vehicle); Mistletoe Express Service v. Culp, 1959 OK 250, 353 P.2d 9 (the servant for a common carrier of freight assaulted the plaintiff when he refused to accept a television tube after the common carrier denied the plaintiff's claim for damage in transit); and Rodebush v. Oklahoma Nursing Homes, Ltd., 1993 OK 160, 867 P.2d 1241 (the employee of a nursing home forcefully slapped a combative male Alzheimer's patient while bathing the patient). ¶ 13 Cases holding the employer was not liable for the tort of the employee include: Hill v. McQueen, 1951 OK 47, 230 P.2d 483 (the manager of a seed company assaulted a former independent sales contractor after the two got into an argument over a disputed debt); Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Sandford, 1953 OK 394, 258 P.2d 604 (bus driver for bus company left his bus parked and assaulted the driver of an automobile and held him for arrest after the bus driver concluded he was drunk); Tulsa General Drivers, Warehouse-men, and Helpers Union, Local No. 523 v. Conley, 1955 OK 277, 288 P.2d 750 (the agent of the union was picketing a business but left to follow the plaintiff four and one-half blocks to beat him with a board studded with nails, because he had crossed the picket line); Allison v. Gilmore, Gardner & Kirk, Inc., 1960 OK 48, 350 P.2d 287 (a gasoline truck driver was employed by the defendant to drive a truck and deliver gasoline, and while fulfilling those duties, assaulted the plaintiff who was climbing on the gasoline truck); and N.H. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 1999 OK 88, 998 P.2d 592 (a Presbyterian minister molested minors, including the plaintiff, during recreational activities aimed at recruiting new members and their families). ¶ 14 The Court in N.H. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A .) distinguished the facts in that case from those in Rodebush. The Court observed that the attendant who was bathing the Alzheimer patient acted impulsively when he slapped the combative patient, but that the impulse naturally arose from the situation he had been placed in by the employer, which was to complete the patient's bath. N.H. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 1999 OK 88, ¶¶ 15, 16, 998 P.2d at 599. But the minister acted for his own personal gratification rather than for any religious purpose. N.H. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 1999 OK 88, ¶ 18, 998 P.2d at 599. ¶ 15 In the Hill case, the Court distinguished it from the Ada-Konawa Bridge and Radford cases. It was the employee's duty to obtain payment of the toll, in Ada-Konawa Bridge, and the train fare in Radford. The employee was to withhold the enjoyment of the right or privilege, if payment was not obtained. Since successful performance involved some type of immediate action in opposition to the will of the other, the employer could have anticipated the wrongful acts taken. Hill, 1951 OK 47, ¶ 7, 230 P.2d at 485. In contrast, the Court held that McQueen's assault on Hill could not be properly contemplated as an incident to the exercise of ordinary authority to collect indebtedness. Hill, 1951 OK 47, ¶ 8, 230 P.2d at 485. ¶ 16 The question of whether or not a servant should be considered to have been acting within the line of duty sufficient to support respondeat superior liability is normally a question of fact to be determined by the jury from all the surrounding circumstances. See Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 1913 OK 7, ¶ 11, 129 P. at 838; see also Nail v. City of Henryetta, 1996 OK 12, ¶ 13, 911 P.2d 914, 918. Nail also quotes from Rest.2d Agency § 228 (1958), comment d at 505, as follows, [t]he question whether or not the act done is so different from the act authorized that it is not within the scope of the employment is decided by the court if the answer is clearly indicated; otherwise, it is decided by the jury. Nail, 1996 OK 12, ¶ 13, 911 P.2d at 918 n. 12. Only when one reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the facts is it appropriate for a court to rule on a respondeat superior issue as a matter of law. Id., 1996 OK 12, ¶ 13, 911 P.2d at 918. Of course, it is a plaintiff's burden to show that the employee was acting within the scope of employment. Rodebush, 1993 OK 160, ¶ 12, 867 P. 2d at 1245. ¶ 17 In the instant case, the answer to the respondeat superior issue primarily lies in determining whether Davis had stepped aside from her employment at the time of the offending tortious act(s) on some mission or conduct to serve her own personal needs, motivations or purposes. See Tulsa General Drivers, Warehousemen, and Helpers Union, Local No. 523 v. Conley and Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Sandford . Our view of the instant matter is consistent with Rest.2d Agency § 245 (1958), comment f at 541, which provides f. Servant actuated by personal motives. The liability of a master for the use of force by a servant is not prevented by the fact that the servant acts in part because of a personal motive, such as revenge. The master, however, is relieved from liability under the rule stated in this Section if the servant has no intent to act on his master's behalf, although the events from which the tortious act follows arise while the servant is acting in the employment and the servant becomes angry because of them. The fact that the servant acts in an outrageous manner or inflicts a punishment out of all proportion to the necessities of his master's business is evidence indicating that the servant has departed from the scope of employment in performing the act. ¶ 18 In our view, a jury, as fact-finder (assuming the parties do not waive a jury trial) must decide if Davis's acts were so far removed from any work-related endeavor and geared, instead, toward a personal course of conduct unrelated to her work so that it would no longer be appropriate to hold her employer responsible for her act(s). Therefore, the purpose or motivation behind Davis's act(s) is an important, and potentially an overriding, consideration permeating resolution of arriving at a correct answer to the respondeat superior question. The statement on the plea document does not unequivocally answer the motivation question. In other words, one cannot tell from the words used in the plea document (I hit Summers (sic) head against the cubby; she was crying she wouldn't stop crying) the purpose or motivation underpinning the act(s) of hitting the infant's head against the shelf (i.e., the cubby). Was it in whole or in part a misguided attempt to quiet the infant or, was it a conscious attempt to harm or injure the child because of Davis's own personal irritation or annoyance at the child? [4] If the latter, the employer would not be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior ; if the former a jury (under appropriate instructions), as fact-finder, might be warranted in finding employer liable under the respondeat superior doctrine. [5]