Opinion ID: 2344665
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ratification of Intentional Torts

Text: The City next argues that, to the extent Lafond's acts were intentional torts, the City would have to ratify them for liability to attach, and such ratification did not occur. In support of this proposition the City cites only an unpublished intermediate Ohio appellate court case interpreting Ohio law. See Amato v. Heinika, Ltd., No. 84479, 2005 WL 110441 (Ohio Ct.App. Jan. 20, 2005) (not reported). The City misapprehends the relevant law. Ratification is an alternative theory of holding an employer liable for torts of an employee. [A]n employer may be vicariously liable for the intentional tort of its employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior or directly liable under the theory of ratification. Skidmore v. Precision Printing and Pkg., Inc., 188 F.3d 606, 614 (5th Cir.1999) (applying Texas law); see Norton v. Derry Nat. Bank, 61 N.H. 589, 592-93 (1882). Summary judgment was properly denied, therefore, because, as a matter of law, ratification is not necessary for an employer to be held liable for an intentional tort under respondeat superior; it is an alternative theory.