Foradori v. Harris
523 F.3d 477, 2008 WL 853559, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 6937 (2008)
Rule of Law:
A business owner owes a duty of reasonable care to its invitees, which includes protecting them from foreseeable harm by both on-duty and off-duty employees on the premises through proper regulation, training, and supervision; liability may attach even if an employee's intentional tort directly caused the harm, so long as the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the owner's negligence.
Facts:
- Michael Foradori, a 15-year-old customer, was at a Captain D's restaurant in Tupelo, Mississippi.
- Al Cannon, an older teenage off-duty Captain D's employee dressed in his restaurant uniform, challenged Foradori to a fight, believing Foradori had been 'hitting on' his girlfriend.
- Cannon's verbal taunts grew louder and sharper for 15 to 20 minutes, drawing a group of young spectators, and he emphasized his taunts by throwing a small object into Foradori’s face or head.
- Peggy King, the restaurant manager on duty, heard the commotion but believed it was only 'teenage horse-play' and, without investigating, called out to the noisy teenagers to take the disturbance outside.
- Cannon, Foradori, Garious Harris (another Captain D's employee who clocked out), and a group of other teenagers then exited the restaurant and flowed into the Captain D's parking lot.
- In the Captain D's parking lot, Cannon continued to verbally challenge Foradori until Garious Harris, a six-foot-tall, nearly 250-pound football player, sprinted toward Foradori from behind and struck him in the back of his neck with a 'hard punch'.
- Foradori was immediately knocked unconscious, fell headfirst to the concrete surface below, suffered a broken neck and severed spine, and was diagnosed with permanent quadriplegia.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Foradori initially brought suit in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Mississippi, seeking damages for injuries.
- Defendant Captain D's removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi based on diversity of citizenship.
- The district court initially denied Captain D's motion for summary judgment but later reconsidered and granted summary judgment in respect to plaintiff’s premises liability claims.
- At the close of Foradori’s case, Captain D’s moved for a judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(a) motion); the district court granted the motion in part, dismissing vicarious liability claims for Harris’s assault, but denied it in part, refusing to dismiss claims based on negligent failure to regulate, train, supervise, and control employees, and submitted those negligence claims to the jury.
- Following closing arguments, the district court charged the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Foradori, awarding him substantial damages.
- The district court entered judgment on the verdict, after which Captain D’s filed a combination motion renewing its motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, moving for a new trial or remittitur, which the district court denied in its entirety.
- Captain D’s filed a timely notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 sufficient evidence support a jury's finding that a restaurant operator's negligent failure to regulate, train, supervise, and control its off-duty employees on its premises was a proximate cause of a customer's severe injuries, even if the direct injury was an intentional tort by an employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, Circuit Judge
Yes, the evidence sufficiently supports the jury's finding that Captain D's negligent failures to regulate, train, supervise, and control its off-duty employees on its premises were proximate causes of Michael Foradori's quadriplegia. The jury reasonably concluded that Captain D's manager, Peggy King, was negligent in her supervision and control of employees. Despite a loud, angry confrontation between an off-duty employee, Al Cannon, and Foradori lasting 15-20 minutes, King merely perceived it as 'horse-play' and ordered the parties to take the disturbance outside, rather than investigating or intervening. This action, coupled with allowing a crowd to follow, aggravated the risk of harm to Foradori. The court affirmed that Captain D's had a duty, under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317 and Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213, to control its off-duty employees on its premises when it knew or should have known of its ability and the necessity to do so. Furthermore, Garious Harris's intentional assault was not a superseding cause because the underlying harm was foreseeable. Mississippi law dictates that an intervening cause is not superseding if it is foreseeable, and it is enough to show that the plaintiff’s injuries fall within a particular kind or class of injury which reasonably could be expected to flow from the defendant's negligence. The jury also reasonably found Captain D's negligently failed to train and regulate its managers and employees. Testimony from managers and employees indicated a lack of specific training or awareness of policies for handling customer altercations, despite the existence of general work rules. Under Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213, an employer has a duty to anticipate and guard against employees' human traits and episodes to prevent undue risk of harm and to make reasonable regulations. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Captain D's motion for a new trial or remittitur, as the jury's substantial damages awards for Foradori's permanent quadriplegia, pain, suffering, and medical expenses were not contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence. The admission of medical bills was proper under Miss. Code Ann. § 41-9-119, which creates a prima facie presumption of necessity and reasonableness, and the per-diem argument for damages was not misleading, especially given the judge's instructions and the jury's lower award.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of employer liability, emphasizing a business owner's duty to manage and train employees, including those off-duty, to prevent foreseeable harm to customers on the premises. It clarifies that merely displacing a volatile situation (e.g., ordering an altercation outside) rather than actively defusing it can constitute negligence. The ruling also reinforces the principle that an intervening intentional tort does not automatically absolve a negligent party if the resulting harm was a foreseeable consequence of the initial negligence, emphasizing the 'kind or class of injury' standard. Future cases will likely scrutinize business policies and training protocols more closely to ensure they adequately prepare staff to handle potential conflicts and protect customers, even from off-duty personnel.
