Opinion ID: 1860134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ten Broeck's Motions for Directed Verdict

Text: Ten Broeck moved for directed verdict at the close of the evidence on the issue of its liability under Brooks' claim for negligent hiring/retention, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Ten Broeck knew, or should have known, that Gilbert presented a threat of sexual assault to Ten Broeck's patients. The motion was denied by the trial court. Ten Broeck asserts the denial was error. In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion for directed verdict, all evidence which favors the prevailing party must be taken as true and the reviewing court is not at liberty to determine credibility or the weight which should be given to the evidence. Humana of Kentucky, Inc., v. McKee, 834 S.W.2d 711, 718 (Ky. App.1992) (emphasis in original). Moreover, the prevailing party is entitled to all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. Id. (emphasis in original). In Flor-Shin , the court held the established law in this Commonwealth recognizes that an employer can be held liable when its failure to exercise ordinary care in hiring or retaining an employee creates a foreseeable risk of harm to a third person. 964 S.W.2d at 442. The test for liability is [whether the employer] knew, or reasonably should have known, that (1) [the employee] was unfit for the job for which he was employed, and (2) whether his placement or retention in that job created an unreasonable risk of harm to [others]. Id. As explained in Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons, 113 S.W.3d 85, 90 (Ky.2003): Foreseeable risks are determined in part on what the defendant knew at the time of the alleged negligence. The actor is required to recognize that his conduct involves a risk of causing an invasion of another's interest if a reasonable man would do so while exercising such attention, perception of the circumstances, memory, knowledge of other pertinent matters, intelligence, and judgment as a reasonable man would have. Id. at 90 ( quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 289(a)) (emphasis in original). Indeed, each case must be evaluated on the totality of its own circumstances consistent with this concept of foreseeability. Flor-Shin , itself, cited to Ponticas v. K.M.S. Investments, 331 N.W.2d 907, 912-913 (Minn.1983), whose language is particularly appropriate here: Although an employer will not be held liable for failure to discover information about the employees [dangerous unsuitability for the employment] that could not have been discovered by reasonable investigation, the issue is whether the employer did make a reasonable investigation. The scope of the investigation is directly related to the severity of risk third parties are subjected to by [the] employee. Although only slight care may suffice in the hiring of a yardman, a worker on a production line, or other types of employment where the employee would not constitute a high risk of injury to third persons, a very different series of steps are justified if an employee is to be sent after hours, to work for protracted periods in the apartment of a young woman tenant. ( quoting Kendall v. Gore Properties, 236 F.2d 673, 678 (C.A.D.C.1956)); see also Kirlin v. Halverson, 758 N.W.2d 436, 453 (S.D.2008) (considering the employee's minimal contacts with the public, the court held, the employer was not under a duty to terminate [the employee's] employment because of this history, as a matter of a duty of reasonable care.); Connes v. Molalla Transport System, Inc., 831 P.2d 1316, 1321 (Colo.1992) (The scope of the employers' duty in exercising reasonable care in a hiring decision will depend largely on the anticipated degree of contact which the employee will have with other persons performing his or her employment duties.); Garcia v. Duffy, 492 So.2d 435, 441 (Fla.App.1986) ([I]n analyzing the employer's responsibility to check out an applicant's background, it is necessary to consider the type of work to be done by the prospective employee). Williams v. Feather Sound, Inc., 386 So.2d 1238, 1240 (Fla.App.1980) (If an employer wishes to give an employee the indicia of authority to enter into the living quarters of others, it has the responsibility of first making some inquiry with respect to whether it is safe to do so.); C.K. Sec. Systems, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 137 Ga.App. 159, 223 S.E.2d 453, 455 (1976) ([C]ircumstances of the case may require a greater amount of care to meet the degree or standard of care required.) Whether or not the employer exercises such care is ordinarily a jury question. Flor-Shin, 964 S.W.2d at 442 (Thus, the issue of Flor-Shin's liability is for a jury to decide.); Ponticas, 331 N.W.2d at 913 (This is generally a jury question.). Here, evidence favorable to Brooks, discloses that St. Matthews police detective, Brad Jeffery, testified that he received information about a sexual predator at Ten Broeck in December 2000, while investigating a patient-on-patient rape at Ten Broeck. The information was given to him by an employee of Ten Broeck. The detective reported the information to the attorney representing Ten Broeck on the matter of the alleged patient-on-patient rape the detective was then investigating. Specifically, he told the attorney he had received a call about Gilbert working on the adolescent wing and that he had perped on a couple of females on the adolescent wing. Detective Jeffery defined perping as the act of a sexual predator to lure or prime a victim sexually before the sexual predator attacks. The attorney called the detective back after about two-and-a-half hours and stated he had spoken to Sherrie Greenhill, Ten Broeck's human resources director and risk manager and that she had advised Jeffery that there was no one there by that name, nor did anyone fit the description or were they aware of any such problems. Detective Jeffery had passed on a description of Gilbert. According to Detective Jeffery, these conversations occurred in December 2000, prior to the alleged sexual assault of Brooks on the night of January 5, 2001. [20] According to Anita DeBroy, Ten Broeck's charge nurse for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, Gilbert would regularly make sexual comments and engage in inappropriate sexual conduct. She discussed the behavior and comments with co-workers and testified about the following patient complaints, which, according to her, where reported to Ten Broeck: 1. Gilbert entered patients rooms which was a violation of hospital policy; 2. Gilbert ran his hand up a patients' leg, asking the patient if she knew another patient and when she replied yes, Gilbert said she's wild. Are you wild? 3. Gilbert inappropriately obtained and read one of the children's personal diary; 4. Gilbert had an inappropriate sexual conversation with a lesbian patient. In one instance, Gilbert told DeBroy that he liked to watch a particular female walk down the hall to watch how her butt bounces. Nancy Reed, a nurse and supervisor of mental health associates at Ten Broeck, was so concerned about Gilbert's conduct that she told co-workers to watch out for him. According to her, the leg rubbing incident, was reported. Sherrie Greenhill, risk manager and director of human resources and performance improvement at Ten Broeck, acknowledged in her testimony that she was aware of a discrepancy in Gilbert's employment application regarding his criminal convictions. Gilbert had three criminal convictions, but in his application, only listed one. She acknowledged that she did not inquire as to this discrepancy. She and Larry Koebel were responsible for hiring Gilbert. Yet, as risk manager, she testified that she made a conscious decision not to provide Gilbert's criminal background information to Koebel. She was aware of this discrepancy before Brooks became a patient. Moreover, she acknowledged that lying on an application for employment can be cause for immediate termination from the hospital. Koebel described one specific incident reported to Ten Broeck in regards to Gilbert's rubbing a female patient's leg and acknowledged this was a big deal and should have been investigated by Ten Broeck; indeed, the hospital's protocol required an investigation. He also admitted that there was no reason for a male mental health associate, such as Gilbert, to enter a female patient's room alone. John Bisig was a nurse manager/associate nurse executive for Ten Broeck. He acknowledged that he was advised by one of the staff nurses that two children had made allegations that Gilbert came into their room on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift and made statements that made them feel uncomfortable. Gilbert asked one girl whether she liked sex and asked the other girl whether she wanted to have a baby. The children were between the ages of 11 and 12. He acknowledged that these complaints were made before any of this stuff regarding [Brooks] was known. No investigation or action was taken by Ten Broeck in response to this information. Negligent retention ... occurs when, during the course of employment, the employer becomes aware or should have become aware of problems with an employee that indicated his unfitness, and the employer fails to take further action such as investigating, discharge, or reassignment. Garcia, 492 So.2d at 438-39. And, where the hospital had received actual notice of allegations that [the employee] had sexually assaulted patients ... it was not unforeseeable that [the employee] would continue to act in a consistent, if not worse, manner. Copithorne v. Framingham Union Hosp., 401 Mass. 860, 520 N.E.2d 139, 142-43 (1988). Thus, viewing the evidence under the appropriate standard, the court did not err in denying the Appellant's motion for directed verdict on the issue of negligent hiring/retention.
Appellant also argues that the court erred in refusing to grant its motion for a directed verdict on Brooks' claim for punitive damages for reasons that the evidence did not establish same. Appellee, however, asserts, and we agree, that this issue was not presented in Ten Broeck's motion for discretionary review. Arguments that punitive damages violate the policy of federal and state law banning employment discrimination and that punitive damages cannot be assessed under Patterson, 172 S.W.3d at 361, when an employee's conduct is outside the scope of his employment, and of no benefit to his employer, questions we have previously addressed in sections III(B) and IV, do not present, or preserve, this issue as now argued by the Appellant. [I]ssues not raised in the motion for Discretionary Review will not be addressed by this Court despite being briefed before us and addressed at oral argument. Wells v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 332, 335 (Ky.2006).