Opinion ID: 1196510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: employer's responsibility for the intentional torts of his employee

Text: The nursing home asserts that the trial court erred in holding that the nurse's aide was acting within his scope of employment. It claims that the aide's action of slapping Rodebush was against the nursing home's policy and had not been suggested as a method of blocking the combativeness of an Alzheimer's patient. On the other hand, plaintiff asserts that the aide was acting to further the business of the employer, and was performing a task assigned to him by the employer. The incident took place while the aide was bathing Rodebush. As a general rule, it is not within the scope of an employee's employment to commit an assault upon a third person. Hill v. McQueen, 204 Okl. 394, 230 P.2d 483, 485 (1951); see also Tulsa General Drivers, Warehouseman and Helpers Union v. Conley, 288 P.2d 750, 753 (Okla. 1955); Cooley on Torts, 4th Ed. §§ 392, 393 (1932). However, this general rule does not apply when the act is one which 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. Russell-Locke Super-Service Inc. v. Vaughn, 170 Okl. 377, 40 P.2d 1090, 1094 (1935); See Ada-Konawa Bridge Co. v. Cargo, 163 Okl. 122, 21 P.2d 1, 7 (1933). 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. Id.; Brayton v. Carter, 196 Okl. 125, 163 P.2d 960, 962 (1945) (automobile accident held to be within scope of employment even though the accident occurred on a route that was twenty-eight miles out of the way); Corn v. City of Sapulpa, 188 Okl. 418, 110 P.2d 290, 291 (1941) (the petition properly withstood a demurrer based on the fact that the employee could have been acting within the scope of his employment even though he made an illegal u-turn while assigned to a task for his employer). In such an instance, an employer can be held liable even if the employee acts beyond the given authority. Patsy Oil & Gas Co. v. Odom, 186 Okl. 116, 96 P.2d 302 (1939) (employer held responsible for the employee's taking of dynamite caps to an oil and gas well even though employer had not authorized the use of dynamite on the rig). It is the burden of the plaintiff to show that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment. Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Sandford, 258 P.2d 604, 607 (Okla. 1953). In Mistletoe Express Serv. v. Culp, 353 P.2d 9 (Okla. 1959), this Court held an assault on customer by a truck driver to be within the scope of employment. The truck driver, a man of violent tendencies, was sent to deliver a television tube to a customer. The customer refused the tube, claiming that it had been damaged. The driver returned it to the employer. The employer declined to pay for the damage and directed that the tube be re-delivered to the customer. During the course of this second attempt to deliver the item, a fight ensued and the customer was injured. Looking to Hill v. McQueen, this Court stated that the rule of scope of employment must be considered on an individual basis. Id. at 15. We observed that in order for an employer to be responsible for the tortious acts of its employee, it must be shown that the act giving rise to the complaint was done for the purpose of doing the work assigned... . Id. at 16. We concluded that under the facts, the driver was carrying out a duty assigned to him and the assault arose out of the performance of this duty. [3] Similarly, in Russell-Locke, we held that an employer could be held liable for the damages caused by an assault by an employee. There, the employer sold storage batteries. After failing to receive payment from a customer, the employer sent an employee to repossess the battery. A fight arose when the employee attempted to repossess the battery. Holding that the assault was within the scope of employment, we stated this was a prime example of the employee carrying out the duties assigned to him. Id. 40 P.2d at 1094. In the present case the nurse's aide was assigned the duty of bathing residents. It was also a known fact that Alzheimer patients may be combative. The nursing home was in the business of taking care of Alzheimer patients. In this particular case, Rodebush was known to be particularly combative when being bathed. The nurse's aide had not deviated from his assigned duties, and was carrying out an assigned task when the slapping occurred. Although the testimony was that slapping a resident was not to be tolerated, there was no documentation as to any training received by the aide in which he was told of this policy. The nursing home was cited by D.H.S. as violating the policy requiring training of personnel. The evidence supports a determination that the acts were within the scope of employment.