District of Columbia v. Tulin
2010 WL 1903598, 994 A.2d 788, 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 265 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer can be held liable for negligent supervision of an employee even when a jury finds the employee is not liable for the underlying tort, if the verdicts can be reconciled based on the specific jury instructions, such as a good faith defense available only to the employee. Courts must indulge every reasonable presumption to harmonize apparently inconsistent civil jury verdicts before ordering a new trial.
Facts:
- Steven Tulin, driving a Porsche, was preparing to make a left turn when Detective Barbara Rauf, driving a Honda directly behind him, honked her horn.
- After Tulin completed the turn, he stopped his car on the side street to allow Rauf to pass, but Rauf pulled up next to him and gestured in what Tulin perceived as a scolding manner.
- Tulin then accelerated to get ahead of Rauf's vehicle.
- Shortly thereafter, Detective Rauf's Honda rear-ended Tulin's Porsche.
- Following the collision, Rauf and Tulin had a hostile interaction, during which Rauf acknowledged she was extremely angry and used profanity.
- Rauf, an off-duty police detective, called for police assistance, reporting an 'officer in trouble.'
- When Officer Leticia McKoy and her supervising sergeants arrived, McKoy interviewed Rauf, who claimed Tulin had been driving recklessly by repeatedly slamming his brakes, causing the collision.
- As Detective Rauf was leaving the scene, she asked Officer McKoy, 'That's an automatic lock-up, isn't it?', to which McKoy allegedly responded, 'Yes.'
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Tulin sued Detective Barbara Rauf, Officer Leticia McKoy, and the District of Columbia in a D.C. trial court.
- The claims included false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligent supervision.
- After a trial, the jury found Detective Rauf liable for IIED but not for false arrest or malicious prosecution.
- The jury found Officer McKoy not liable on all claims against her.
- The jury found the District of Columbia liable for the negligent supervision of Officer McKoy.
- The jury awarded Tulin $450,000 in damages against both Detective Rauf and the District.
- The District and Rauf filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing the verdicts were legally inconsistent.
- The trial judge denied the motion and entered judgment on the verdict.
- The District of Columbia and Detective Rauf appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury's finding that an employer is liable for negligent supervision fatally conflict with its finding that the supervised employee is not liable for the underlying tort, thereby requiring the verdict against the employer to be set aside as inconsistent?
Opinions:
Majority - Schwelb, Senior Judge
No, the jury's verdict finding the District of Columbia liable for negligent supervision does not fatally conflict with its verdict exonerating the supervised employee, Officer McKoy. Courts have a constitutional duty to harmonize apparently inconsistent jury verdicts in civil cases if there is any reasonable view of the case that makes the findings consistent. Here, the jury was instructed that Officer McKoy could be absolved of false arrest if she 'reasonably believed in good faith that her conduct towards the plaintiff was lawful.' The jury could have reasonably concluded that Officer McKoy, as a subordinate officer, acted in good faith based on the information from a detective and the authorization of her own supervising sergeants. Simultaneously, the jury could find the sergeants themselves were negligent for failing to conduct an adequate investigation—such as by not asking Detective Rauf, the following driver in a rear-end collision, basic questions about her speed and distance—before authorizing the arrest. Thus, the District of Columbia could be liable for the sergeants' negligent supervision, a distinct tort, even if Officer McKoy was not personally liable for false arrest due to her good faith.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for setting aside a civil jury verdict on grounds of inconsistency, emphasizing the court's duty to reconcile the jury's findings whenever possible. It clarifies that negligent supervision is a separate and distinct cause of action from the underlying employee tort. The ruling establishes that an employer's liability can arise from a supervisor's independent negligence, even if the front-line employee is exonerated on a defense like good faith. This strengthens a plaintiff's ability to hold an entity, such as a municipality, accountable for systemic or supervisory failures in cases of police misconduct, independent of the personal liability of the line officer.
