In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, Petitioner appealed an order of the Court of Claims which granted the State of New York's [Defendant] motion for summary judgment dismissing the Petitioner's claim.
Petitioner commenced this action in New York State's Court of Claims seeking to recover damages for personal injuries he alleged he had suffered when "he was assaulted by a correction officer". State moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim, contending that it could not be held liable for the assault under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
The Court of Claims granted the State's motion and Petitioner appealed the Court of Claims' ruling.
The Appellate Division, citing held in Rivera v State of New York, 34 NY3d 383, observed that "Under the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer — including the State — may be held vicariously liable for torts, including intentional torts, committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment", provided that the tortious conduct is 'generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment'".
In determining if an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment for purposes of determining vicarious liability of an employer courts consider:
1. The connection between the time, place and occasion for the act;
2. The history of the relationship between employer and employee as spelled out in actual practice;
3. Whether the act is one commonly done by such an employee;
4. The extent of departure from normal methods of performance; and
5. Whether the specific act was one that the employer could reasonably have anticipated.
Further, in cases involving a use of force, whether an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment requires consideration of whether the employee was authorized to use force to effectuate the goals and duties of his or her employment.
In the instant action, the Court of Claims granted the State's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim, finding that the State could not be held liable for the assault under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Petitioner appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims' ruling, observing that "the [State] established, prima facie, that the correction officer was not acting within the scope of his employment when he assaulted the [Petitioner]" and Petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
In the words of the Appellate Division, "the Court of Claims properly granted that branch of the [State's] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the [Plaintiff's] claim".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.