Employer liability for employee’s off-duty conduct
Donahue v Young, 298 AD2d 354
What liability does a municipality have when one of its firefighters assists in extinguishing fire - but not while on duty? According to the Donahue ruling, if the employee is not acting in the performance of his or her official duties, the employer does not have any liability for his or her action.
Ken Young, a New York City Firefighter, was off-duty, pursing personal business, when he spotted a car on fire while on the Van Wyck Expressway. Young stopped to assist. Apparently, as a result of Young's attempt to provide assistance, Walter Donahue sustained an injury and sued the City for damages.
The City argued that because Young was not on duty at the time, the City could not be held liable for the injury Donahue suffered. The Appellate Division agreed, stating that since Young acted voluntarily, "the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply here." It ruled that the City could not be held vicariously liable for Young's actions.*
Although public employers may discipline an employee for off-duty conduct that negatively impacts upon the reputation or good name of the employer, it does not necessarily follow that an employer is responsible for its employees’ actions while they are off duty.
* The doctrine of “respondeat superior” expresses the concept that the employer is responsible for the actions of its employees in connection with their work