Court Opinion

ID: 9557715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:56:03.478788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:29.837656
License: Public Domain

KEETON, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
In my opinion the demurrer to the amended complaint was properly sustained. It shows on its face that it cannot be amended to state a cause of action. Hence, the judgment of dismissal should be affirmed.
The amended complaint alleges in substance that Harrison Crowell, employed by the Village of Bancroft, as water commissioner, assaulted and murdered Jay Gilbert. The alleged liability of the village to the deceased’s dependents is based mostly on legal or factual conclusions, without any statement of ultimate facts on which to base a liability. Assuming that the legal and factual conclusions are true, still the amended complaint states no cause of action.
On what possible theory an employer could be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, I am unable to determine. An employee, under such circumstances, is not working in furtherance of his master’s business, and the governing board of a city or village could not, regardless of its act, create a liability, for which the municipality would be liable.
Certainly a governing board is not elected or employed to authorize or condone a violent assault on the person of another for which the corporation could be made liable.
*193A municipal corporation, whether acting in a proprietary or governmental capacity, is not the insurer of the personal safety of another from an assault by an employee, nor is such municipal corporation in a position to know, suspect or expect that one of its employees will wilfully murder another. The employee’s act was entirely foreign to the service for which he was employed and for such act the employer is not responsible.
In the situation being considered, the act of Crowell was not in the scope of the employer’s business, nor was it one that could be authorized or condoned by the governing body.
The liability of an employer to a third person for an assault committed by an employee must be predicated upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the test of liability is whether the servant was acting'within the scope of his employment. An employee of a municipal corporation is not acting within the scope of his employment when he wilfully murders another.
In my opinion no authority is cited to sustain the majority view.
I cite the following authorities sustaining the view that the Village of Bancroft is not liable: 35 Am.Jur. 1005, Sec. 573; 114 A.L.R. 1034; 34 A.L.R.2d 402. In the latter citation, the annotator cites cases from U. S., Alabama, California, Dakota, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington and West Virginia. A review of authorities would serve no useful purpose.
The conclusion reached by the majority may have far reaching effects on future similar situations, and establish a precedent that could bankrupt a municipality, or private corporation.
The judgment of dismissal should be affirmed.