Court Opinion

ID: 9751049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:01:12.074401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:33.732835
License: Public Domain

NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I am unable to agree with the majority that there exists any issue of material fact in this case requiring reversal of the summary judgment motions granted below. First, in order for appellant to succeed on the basis of respondeat superior, the shooting of appellant by Flink must be determined to have occurred within the scope of Flink’s employment. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Reddick, 398 A.2d 27, 29 (D.C.1979). While vicarious liability for intentional torts now extends beyond actions specifically authorized by the employer, it is limited to “situations where the employment provides a ‘peculiar opportunity and ... incentive for such loss of temper,’ W. ProsseR, Law of Torts § 70 at 466, as where an argument is likely by virtue of the servant’s duties, and the conduct is wholly or partially in furtherance of the master’s business.” Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Reddick, supra, 398 A.2d at 31. An employer is not responsible for its employee’s conduct where the employee’s actions constitute a marked and decided departure from the employer’s business.
The issue to be decided, then, is “whether the conduct in question is ‘so unforeseeable as to make it unfair to charge the employer with responsibility.’ ” Id. at 30. “When a servant’s conduct is wholly unprovoked, highly unusual, and outrageous, these facts alone may be sufficient to indicate that the motive for an intentional tort was personal.” W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 70 at 465.
Here, the facts are clear that Flink’s duties extended solely to gardening during *65the day and securing a building at night. He was never authorized to eject trespassers from the grounds. The late-night altercation between Flink and Murphy was neither a direct outgrowth of Flink’s instructions or job assignment, nor an integral part of The Army Distaff Foundation’s business activities, interests or objectives. Instead, Flink’s actions suggest á purely personal motive unknown to appellees and wholly unforeseeable. Thus, as a matter of law, the assault by Flink upon Murphy was in no degree committed for appellee’s benefit, nor the product of a job related controversy, see Lyon v. Carey, 174 U.S.App.D.C. 422, 533 F.2d 649 (1976), but rather “solely for the accomplishment of the independent malicious or mischievous purpose of the servant” and therefore outside the scope of Flink’s employment. Great A&P Tea Co. v. Aveilhe, 116 A.2d 162, 165 (D.C.MumApp.1955), quoting Evers v. Krouse, 70 N.J.L. 653, 58 A. 181 (1904).
Second, the majority errs with respect to the negligent supervision claim. This cause of action requires actual negligence on the part of the principal when conducting an activity through its servants. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 (1957). There is no evidence of record indicating that The Army Distaff Foundation in any way participated in Flink’s ejectment of trespassers from the grounds. Flink’s employment duties entailed his basic job as a gardener during the day, and securing the Knoll House, where he lived, at night. The unfortunate incident involving Murphy was not in any way even tangentially related to either of these activities as was the case in International Distributing Corp. v. American District Telegraph Co., 186 U.S.App.D.C. 305, 569 F.2d 136 (1977).
Aside from failing to clear this initial hurdle, the majority opinion strains to develop a conceivable basis upon which to build a negligent supervision case. Initially, the majority states that “appellant must establish that appellee knew or should have known that its employee regularly ejected trespassers while armed." (Emphasis added.) After declaring this the standard, the majority admits that there was no evidence presented which would even support the inference that appellee had notice of Flink’s ever carrying a gun on the grounds. The majority then attempts to salvage appellant’s cause of action by latching on to language found in Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 comment g. Under the heading of “inadequate regulations,” this comment states that “[o]ne who engages in an enterprise is under a duty to anticipate and to guard against the human traits of his employees which unless regulated are likely to harm others.” Id. Apparently the majority subscribes to the position that it is a knowable “human trait” of those hired to garden and secure buildings at night to chase trespassers off the employer’s grounds while armed. A reading of the illustrations listed under comment g affirms that the scope of the language was never intended to reach this far, nor should it.1 This thoughtless application of the literal passages of the Restatements is a misuse of those works.
The trial court properly dismissed each of appellant’s claims on summary judgment grounds. To the extent that the majority found genuine issues of material fact relating to claims of respondeat superior and negligent supervision, I respectfully dissent.

. The “inadequate regulations” examples given are (1) a railway which failed to make adequate rules for the use of its tracks by passing trains running in opposite directions; (2) a busy garage with an entrance across a sidewalk which did not deal with the problem of pedestrians crossing; and (3) a powder manufacturer who failed to regulate the disposal of his accumulated product.