Davis v. Devereux Foundation
209 N.J. 269, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 197, 37 A.3d 469 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer, including a non-profit residential facility, is not liable for an employee's intentional criminal act under a theory of non-delegable duty, nor is such an act within the scope of employment for respondeat superior purposes if it was unforeseeable, motivated by personal anger, and not actuated by a purpose to serve the employer.
Facts:
- Roland Davis, a nonverbal resident with severe autism and a history of aggression, was placed in the care of Devereux Foundation, a non-profit residential facility.
- Devereux had conducted a thorough background check on employee Charlene McClain before hiring her, which revealed no criminal history or propensity for violence.
- In the two days preceding the incident, Davis physically attacked McClain on two separate occasions, prompting McClain to complain to a supervisor.
- Six months prior to the incident, McClain's boyfriend had been murdered, and she later stated she had been angry ever since.
- On October 9, 2004, McClain arrived for her shift, heated a cup of water in a microwave, and went to Davis's room.
- McClain poured the boiling water on Davis as he was getting out of bed, causing severe burns.
- McClain later admitted to police that her act was premeditated, stating Davis had not attacked her that morning and she did it because she was "just mad" about her boyfriend's murder.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, Roland Davis's mother and guardian, sued Devereux Foundation and Charlene McClain in the New Jersey trial court.
- The trial court initially denied Devereux's motion for summary judgment regarding vicarious liability, finding Devereux had a non-delegable duty.
- On a motion for reconsideration, the trial court reversed its prior ruling and granted summary judgment to Devereux, dismissing all claims against it.
- Plaintiff appealed to the New Jersey Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's rejection of the non-delegable duty claim but reversed the grant of summary judgment on the respondeat superior claim, remanding the case for trial.
- Both plaintiff and defendant Devereux petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a non-profit residential facility liable for an employee's intentional criminal assault on a resident under either a theory of non-delegable duty or respondeat superior, when the facility had thoroughly screened the employee and the employee's act was motivated by personal reasons?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Patterson
No. The Devereux Foundation is not liable for its employee's criminal assault on a resident. New Jersey law does not impose a non-delegable duty on institutions with in loco parentis responsibilities that would amount to absolute liability for unforeseeable criminal acts of properly screened employees. Furthermore, the employee's premeditated assault, motivated by personal anger, was not within the scope of her employment and therefore cannot support liability under respondeat superior. The court applied the Hopkins test to determine that imposing a new non-delegable duty was not warranted by the parties' relationship, the nature of the risk, the ability to exercise care, or public policy. The court also found that under the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228, McClain's conduct was not actuated by a purpose to serve her employer; it was a serious crime that directly contravened Devereux's mission and was therefore outside the scope of employment as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Justice Hoens
Yes. The Devereux Foundation should be held liable. The majority misapplies the law by confusing a non-delegable duty with absolute liability and improperly using the Hopkins test to analyze whether an existing duty is non-delegable. Given Davis's extreme vulnerability and Devereux's total responsibility for his care, the duty to protect him should be non-delegable. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could find McClain's act was within the scope of her employment. Viewing the facts favorably to the plaintiff, McClain's misguided and violent act could be seen as an attempt to control a resident who had recently attacked her, and thus was at least partially motivated by a purpose to fulfill her job of managing him.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that institutions with in loco parentis responsibilities are held to a standard of reasonable care, not absolute liability. By rejecting the non-delegable duty theory, the court protected charitable organizations from potentially devastating liability for the unforeseeable criminal acts of employees, balancing resident safety with the public interest in the continued viability of such institutions. The ruling also narrowly construes the 'scope of employment' for intentional torts, requiring a clear, not speculative, connection between the employee's act and a purpose to serve the employer. This case reinforces the high bar plaintiffs must clear to hold employers vicariously liable for egregious employee misconduct that is personally motivated.
