Gonzales v. Southwest Security & Protection Agency, Inc.
100 N.M. 54, 665 P.2d 810 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is liable for the intentional torts of its employees if the torts are committed in the course and scope of employment, particularly when the employment inherently involves potential conflict and is facilitated by employer-provided instrumentalities; furthermore, an employer can be found negligent for failing to adequately hire, train, supervise, or retain employees if such negligence proximately causes a plaintiff's injuries.
Facts:
- Raymond Gonzales attended a wrestling match sponsored by Fundamentals, Inc. at the City of Albuquerque's civic auditorium.
- Southwest Security and Protection Agency (Southwest) was hired by Fundamentals to provide security services for the event.
- As Gonzales and a friend were leaving the auditorium, a woman accosted Gonzales, accusing him of throwing beer.
- Southwest security guards intervened and told Gonzales and his friend to leave.
- Once outside the auditorium, the woman again accosted Gonzales' friend, causing a substantial disturbance.
- When security guards arrived at the disturbance, Gonzales was present as a bystander.
- The security guards threw Gonzales to the ground, handcuffed him, and took him to a small room.
- In the small room, the security guards beat Gonzales, causing him to sustain a broken jaw and lose four teeth, despite Gonzales remaining calm and not provoking the guards.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond Gonzales sued the City of Albuquerque, Fundamentals, Inc., Southwest Security and Protection Agency, and five security guard employees (Mike and Alex Sedillo, David Chavez, Ysidro Victor Vigil, and Denny Sanchez) for damages resulting from false imprisonment, battery, and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention.
- Default judgment was entered against Southwest employees Mike and Alex Sedillo and David Chavez.
- A bench trial was held in the trial court.
- The trial court found the City of Albuquerque, Fundamentals, Inc., and Southwest employee Ysidro Victor Vigil to be free of fault.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of Gonzales against Southwest Security and Protection Agency and its employee Denny Sanchez, awarding $15,000.00.
- Southwest Security and Protection Agency appealed the trial court's judgment to the New Mexico 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:
Is an employer liable for the intentional torts of its security guard employees, committed while using employer-provided instrumentalities, when the acts are "naturally incident" to the business and done with a view to further the employer's interests, and is there substantial evidence to support a finding that the employer's negligence in hiring, training, and supervising those employees proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Lopez, Judge
Yes, an employer is liable for the intentional torts of its security guard employees when the torts occur within the course and scope of employment, particularly when the employment inherently involves potential conflict and the use of employer-provided instrumentalities, and yes, there was substantial evidence to support the finding that Southwest's negligence in hiring, training, and supervision proximately caused Gonzales' injuries. The court affirmed that an employer is liable for an employee's intentional torts if committed within the course and scope of employment, which is a question of fact, citing McCauley v. Ray. The court applied the 'course of employment' test from Miera v. George, which requires an act to be (1) 'fairly and naturally incident to the business' and (2) done 'with a view to further the master’s interests' or from an impulse 'naturally grew out of or was incident to the attempt to perform the master’s business.' Additionally, the court referenced Restatement (Second) of Agency § 245, stating a master is liable for intended tortious harm if the act 'was not unexpectable in view of the duties of the servant,' noting that employment 'likely to bring the servant into conflict with others' (like security work) often leads to liability. Given that Southwest provided guards with uniforms, handcuffs, guns, nightsticks, and authority to keep peace, and that Gonzales' injuries were inflicted with these instrumentalities, the court concluded the guards' conduct was naturally incident to Southwest’s business and arose from an attempt to perform it. The court also found substantial evidence to support Southwest's negligence. It distinguished F & T Co. v. Woods by noting that in this case, the guards acted within the scope of employment and used employer-provided instrumentalities. The court highlighted trial court findings that Southwest failed to adequately investigate backgrounds, supervise, train in weapon use (clubs/handcuffs), and instruct on restraining individuals. Crucially, Southwest was aware of at least one prior beating by its employees at similar events and failed to take appropriate action. Based on these findings and supporting testimony, the court concluded that Southwest's negligence proximately caused Gonzales’ harm.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the parameters of employer liability for intentional torts, particularly for businesses that employ personnel with inherent duties involving potential use of force, such as security guards. It integrates existing common law principles of 'course and scope of employment' with the Restatement (Second) of Agency's 'unexpectable in view of duties' standard, establishing a lower threshold for employer liability in high-risk professions. Furthermore, the decision underscores the importance of adequate hiring, training, and supervision, demonstrating that an employer's negligent omissions can be a proximate cause of even intentional harm, especially when the employer has knowledge of prior similar incidents. This creates a strong incentive for employers to implement robust oversight mechanisms to mitigate risks associated with their employees' actions.
