G.T. Management, Inc. v. Gonzalez
2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4512, 106 S.W.3d 880, 2003 WL 21223312 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's intentional tort, such as assault, if the tortious conduct is of the same general nature as, or incidental to, the employee's authorized duties, or is closely connected with the accomplishment of an entrusted duty rather than personal animosity, even if the act is contrary to express orders.
Facts:
- On October 11, 1998, around 11:00 p.m., Michael Gonzalez went to Club 2551, a dance club operated by G.T. Management, Inc.
- Around 1:00 a.m., a Club 2551 bouncer confronted Gonzalez, accusing him of throwing a bottle.
- When Gonzalez denied throwing the bottle, the bouncer called additional bouncers, who then grabbed Gonzalez from behind, pinned his arms, and began hitting him in the face with their flashlights.
- Gonzalez was thrown against a wall and subsequently thrown down the steps at the club entrance.
- Gonzalez sustained injuries as a result of the incident and was transported by ambulance to Parkland Hospital for medical treatment.
- Fights frequently occurred at Club 2551, sometimes three or four per night, and the bouncers' duties included breaking up fights and escorting patrons out of the club.
- Bouncers were expected to signal for back-up with flashlights during fights, used choke holds to control patrons, and were primarily hired based on their size.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Gonzalez sued Luis Alberto Garza, individually, and G.T. Management, Inc. (d/b/a Club 2551) in state trial court, alleging negligence and gross negligence and seeking damages for pain, anguish, medical expenses, and exemplary damages.
- The case was submitted to the trial court.
- The trial court rendered a verdict in favor of Gonzalez against G.T. Management, Inc., finding no liability as to Garza, and awarded Gonzalez $80,000, costs, and pre- and postjudgment interest.
- G.T. Management, Inc.'s motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law.
- G.T. Management, Inc. appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas.
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 an employer's liability under respondeat superior extend to an employee's intentional tort, such as assault, if the tortious conduct is closely connected with or incidental to the employee's authorized duties, even if contrary to the employer's express policies?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice ROSENBERG
Yes, an employer can be held liable under respondeat superior for an employee's intentional tort if the conduct is closely connected with or incidental to the employee’s authorized duties, even if the act is contrary to express orders or involves force not explicitly authorized. The court first clarified that Gonzalez adequately pleaded respondeat superior by alleging that the bouncers were employees acting within the course and scope of their employment. It also noted that oral comments by a trial judge at the conclusion of a bench trial are not a substitute for formal findings of fact and conclusions of law. In the absence of such findings, the judgment must be affirmed if it can be upheld on any legal theory supported by the evidence, implying all necessary fact findings in support of the judgment. The court affirmed that an employee's tortious conduct falls within the scope of employment if it is of the same general nature as, or incidental to, authorized conduct. An employer is vicariously liable for an intentional tort if the act, although not specifically authorized, is closely connected with the employee’s authorized duties, meaning it is committed in the accomplishment of an entrusted duty rather than from personal animosity. The evidence showed that Club 2551's bouncers were authorized to use force as part of their duties to break up frequent fights and remove patrons, employing methods like choke holds and being hired for their size. Therefore, the bouncers’ assault on Gonzalez was incidental to their authorized use of force. The court found this evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's implied finding of G.T. Management's liability under a respondeat superior theory. The court also rejected G.T. Management’s claims regarding damages, stating that an objection to a chiropractor's testimony was not preserved for appeal and the remittitur argument was waived because it failed to address all elements of the damages award, specifically past and future pain and suffering.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the application of respondeat superior to intentional torts, especially in industries where employees are implicitly or explicitly authorized to use force, such as security or club bouncers. It clarifies that even actions contrary to express company policy can fall within the 'scope of employment' if they are closely related to the employee's authorized duties. This decision highlights the importance for employers to properly train and supervise employees in roles involving potential force, as the employer bears the risk of liability for overzealous or misdirected actions by such employees. Furthermore, it underscores critical procedural rules regarding the preservation of objections for appeal and the comprehensive nature required for challenging multi-element damages awards.
