Opinion ID: 2342641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vicarious Liability Assault and Battery, Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Text: Norwich claims error in the court's entry of judgment on the claims of assault and battery, as well as negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, because those claims are premised on acts of the cadre members that were not authorized and did not occur within the scope of their employment. Norwich claims it should not be held vicariously liable for the cadre's hazing. Under the settled doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer or master is held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of an employee or servant committed during, or incidental to, the scope of employment. See Anderson v. Toombs, 119 Vt. 40, 44-45, 117 A.2d 250, 253 (1955); Poplaski v. Lamphere, 152 Vt. 251, 257, 565 A.2d 1326, 1330 (1989). Norwich concedes that cadre members acted as its agents in indoctrinating and orienting rooks such as plaintiff. Norwich claims, however, that the tortious acts complained of were not committed within the cadre members' scope of employment. Whether a given act is committed within the scope of employment is properly determined by the finder of fact after consideration of the attendant facts and circumstances of the particular case. See Anderson, 119 Vt. at 48, 117 A.2d at 254. To be within the scope of employment, conduct must be of the same general nature as, or incidental to, the authorized conduct. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 229(1) (1958). Conduct of the servant falls within the scope of employment if: (a) it is of the kind the servant is employed to perform; (b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; (c) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master; and (d) in a case in which the force is intentionally used by the servant against another, it is not unexpectable by the master. See id. § 228(1). Conduct of a servant is not within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time and space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master. See id. § 228(2). Here, the cadre were authorized by Norwich to indoctrinate and orient rooks through activities performed at various times of the day and night. A jury could reasonably find members of the cadre were acting in furtherance of their general duties to indoctrinate and orient the rooks and thus within their scope of employment at the time of the hazing incidents of which plaintiff complains. Norwich argues that, because it had adopted policies against hazing and had instructed the cadre to refrain from mistreating the rooks, the tortious conduct was outside the scope of employment. Norwich contends that McHugh v. University of Vermont, 966 F.2d 67 (2d Cir.1992), supports this result. In McHugh, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Vermont law, concluded that an employee who sexually and religiously harassed a fellow employee was not acting within the scope of employment. There, a major in the United States Army and an employee at the University of Vermont's Department of Military Studies told plaintiff, a female secretary, that his definition of a secretary was a paid whore. The employee repeatedly joked about plaintiff contracting AIDS, stating that he hoped she would be able to avoid infection. The employee also told plaintiff that it was a good day to watch Catholic babies burn. Id. at 68-69. The court rejected the argument that the employee's conduct was within his scope of employment because it was within that scope for him to talk with the plaintiff, either to give instructions or to avoid the awkwardness of silence at work. It held: It can hardly be contended that [the employee's] alleged conduct furthered the business of his employer. Id. at 75. The same cannot be said of this case, where the actions involved in hazing rooks may fairly be seen as qualitatively similar to the indoctrination and orientation with which the cadre members were charged. Indeed, Norwich described some of the acts of which plaintiff complained, such as forced calisthenics and questioning at mealtime, as not far removed from the official system of military discipline and training which recruits are expected to endure. The evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the cadre members were acting within the scope of employment. See Belanger v. Village Pub I, Inc., 26 Conn.App. 509, 603 A.2d 1173, 1179 (1992) (under doctrine of respondeat superior, employee's failure to follow employer's orders would not relieve employer of liability for employee's tortious conduct if employee acted with apparent authority in furtherance of employer's business).
Norwich next claims that there was insufficient evidence to support plaintiff's claim for assault and battery and thus, that the court erred when it denied Norwich judgment as a matter of law. Norwich concedes that an assault and battery occurred, but claims that vicarious liability cannot be established because insufficient evidence exists to identify the assailant as a member of the cadre. At trial, plaintiff could not recall whether the person who had struck him in the shoulder was a member of the cadre, but testified that he knew the assailant was not a rook and thought he was a member of the senior class. Plaintiff's counsel stressed in closing argument that, although plaintiff's memory failed him at trial, a report prepared in connection with plaintiff's case contained his earlier statement to his roommate that the hitter had been a cadre member. Norwich claims that the identification in the report is triple hearsay and amounts to conjecture, surmise or suspicion, (quoting Burleson v. Caledonia Sand & Gravel Co., 127 Vt. 594, 597, 255 A.2d 680, 682 (1969)), which is inadequate as a matter of law to support the jury's verdict. There is no absolute prohibition against the use of admitted hearsay evidence to support a jury's verdict. See In re M.P., 133 Vt. 144, 146, 333 A.2d 116, 118 (1975). Particularly in light of the fact that Norwich commissioned the report and moved for its introduction at trial, it cannot complain of the jury's consideration of a statement recorded therein. Notwithstanding plaintiff's memory lapse at trial, the jury reasonably could have concluded that plaintiff's earlier statement accurately recorded the attacker's identity. The court correctly denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Norwich claims that it was error for the court to uphold the jury's finding of liability for the claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. To establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must make a threshold showing that he or someone close to him faced physical peril. See Francis v. Gaylord Container Corp., 837 F.Supp. 858, 864 (S.D.Ohio 1992), aff'd, 9 F.3d 107 (6th Cir.1993). The prerequisites for establishing a claim differ according to whether plaintiff suffered a physical impact from an external force. See Kingston Square Tenants Ass'n v. Tuskegee Gardens, Ltd., 792 F.Supp. 1566, 1576-77 (S.D. Fla.1992). If there has been an impact, plaintiff may recover for emotional distress stemming from the incident during which the impact occurred. See id. If plaintiff has not suffered an impact, plaintiff must show that: (1) he was within the zone of danger of an act negligently directed at him by defendant, (2) he was subjected to a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury, and (3) he in fact suffered substantial bodily injury or illness as a result. See Vaillancourt v. Medical Ctr. Hosp. of Vermont, 139 Vt. 138, 143, 425 A.2d 92, 95 (1980). In this case, plaintiff withstood at least two incidents of physical impact by a cadre member. Plaintiff testified about the fear of personal injury he felt in connection with a cadre member's careening down the dormitory hallway on a skateboard and plowing into rooks. On one such occasion, the cadre member ran into plaintiff. Plaintiff also testified as to the fear and apprehension he felt when struck twice in the shoulder he had previously injured. Plaintiff's doctor testified that plaintiff suffered from post-traumatic-stress disorder and a major depressive disorder as a result of his perception that he was at risk of serious physical injury during the incidents just described. The evidence at trial fairly and reasonably supported the jury's verdict on negligent infliction of emotional distress. [1]