Employer not liable for its employee’s off-duty misconduct outside the scope of his or her employment or not in furtherance of the employer’s business

Employer not liable for its employee’s off-duty misconduct outside the scope of his or her employment or not in furtherance of the employer’s business

2015 NY Slip Op 02560, Appellate Division, First Department

The Administrator of the Estate of an individual shot by an off-duty New York City police officer after a "road rage" related altercation sued the City for alleged negligent training and instruction of the officer involved in the incident.

Supreme Court held that the off-duty police office’s act of shooting the decedent as the result of “road rage” was a private, intentional act that occurred outside the scope of his employment as a police officer.

The Appellate Division agreed, ruling that any alleged deficiencies in the City's training and instruction of its police officers could not have been the  proximate cause of the decedent's injuries.

In another case involving alleged off-duty misconduct, Jane Doe v New York City Department of Education, 2015 NY Slip Op 02433, it was undisputed that a teacher and a student had engaged in unlawful sexual intercourse after school hours. The Appellate Division, however, rejected the student’s argument that the New York City Board of Education was vicarious liable for the teacher’s misconduct as the alleged sexual intercourse with the student was not in furtherance of school business and was outside the scope of the teacher's employment.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_02560.htm

The Doe decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_02433.htm