Haworth v. Elliott
67 Cal. App. 2d 77 (1944)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's tortious use of excessive force if the employee was acting within the general scope of their employment, even if the specific wrongful act was unauthorized or occurred just outside the business premises.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Haworth, along with his wife and friends, entered a bar operated by defendant Elliott.
- While in the bar, Haworth became involved in a quarrel with another patron.
- Elliott's employees, bartenders Collier and Symington, were in charge of the premises in Elliott's absence.
- The bartenders' duties included maintaining order and ejecting anyone creating a disturbance.
- Collier and Symington intervened in the quarrel, with Collier grabbing Haworth in a headlock and dragging him towards the door to eject him.
- In the course of the ejectment, the bartenders struck Haworth.
- As a result of the altercation with the bartenders, Haworth suffered a broken finger, a broken nose, and other serious bodily injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Haworth sued the bar owner Elliott and the bartenders Collier and Symington in a California trial court.
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, Haworth, and awarded him $1,200 in damages.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 injuries caused by his employees' use of excessive force when ejecting a patron, if the employees were authorized to maintain order and the excessive force was used during the course of the ejection?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, P. J.
Yes. An employer is liable for injuries inflicted by his employees when they apply excessive force while acting within the general scope of their employment. The court reasoned that the bartenders, Collier and Symington, were authorized by their employer, Elliott, to maintain order and eject patrons. The assault on Haworth occurred during the course of them performing this authorized duty. The court held that the critical question is not whether the wrongful act itself (the assault) was authorized, but whether it was committed during a series of acts that were authorized by the principal. The employer's liability is not severed simply because the force used was excessive or because the final blows may have been struck just outside the bar's front door, as it was all part of the continuous act of ejecting a patron. The evidence supported the finding that the force used was excessive and unjustified, thereby making the employer liable for the resulting injuries.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of respondeat superior, particularly in cases involving intentional torts committed by employees. It clarifies that an employer's liability is not contingent on authorizing the specific wrongful act but rather on whether the act occurred within the general scope of the employee's duties. The ruling establishes that the 'scope of employment' can extend beyond the physical premises if the employee's actions are a direct continuation of a work-related task. This precedent makes it more difficult for employers, especially in service industries where employees are tasked with maintaining order, to evade liability by claiming an employee's use of force was an unauthorized personal act.
