Jose Rivera v. State of New York
N/A (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's intentional tort when the employee's actions, such as a gratuitous and malicious assault, are not in furtherance of the employer's business, constitute a significant departure from the normal methods of performing their duties, and are unforeseeable.
Facts:
- In January 2010, inmate Jose Rivera was required to wear a protective helmet due to a seizure disorder.
- Correction Officer Michael Wehby mocked Rivera's helmet inside the prison mess hall.
- After Rivera asked Wehby to stop, Wehby called Rivera over, pulled him outside the mess hall, and began punching him in the face and head.
- Two other officers, Sergeant Joseph LaTour and Officer Robert Femia, arrived, pushed Rivera down to the floor, and handcuffed him.
- While Rivera was handcuffed and immobilized, Wehby removed Rivera's protective helmet and continued to punch, knee, and kick him in the head.
- During the assault, Wehby yelled expletives, said in substance, 'I hope you die,' and struck Rivera in the head with his radio with such force that the battery became dislodged.
- Rivera lost consciousness and sustained serious injuries; medical staff were later falsely told that his injuries resulted from a seizure.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Rivera filed a claim for assault and battery against the State of New York in the Court of Claims.
- The State's motion to amend its answer to assert that the officers acted outside the scope of employment was granted by the Court of Claims.
- Rivera moved for summary judgment, and the State cross-moved for summary judgment on the assault and battery claim.
- The Court of Claims, a trial-level court, denied Rivera's motion and granted the State's cross-motion for summary judgment, holding that the officer's actions were outside the scope of employment as a matter of law.
- Rivera, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the decision of the Court of Claims.
- The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, granted Rivera, as appellant, leave to appeal from the Appellate Division's order.
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 correction officer's unprovoked, brutal, and prolonged assault on an inmate, which is not in furtherance of any employer-related goal, constitute conduct within the scope of employment for which the State can be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge DiFiore
No. The correction officer's assault does not constitute conduct within the scope of employment. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for an employee's torts only if the acts were committed in furtherance of the employer's business and within the scope of employment. While the assault occurred at the prison during work hours, the officer's actions were not a mere disregard of instructions but a malicious attack completely divorced from the employer's interests. The gratuitous and utterly unauthorized use of force was so egregious that it constituted a significant departure from the normal duties of a correction officer as a matter of law. Furthermore, the State could not have reasonably anticipated such a flagrant and unjustified attack. Therefore, the State cannot be held vicariously liable for the assault and battery.
Dissenting - Judge Rivera
The court should not have granted summary judgment because there are material triable issues of fact as to whether all three officers acted within the scope of their employment. The State's motion for summary judgment improperly focused only on Officer Wehby, who struck the blows, while ignoring the actions of Sergeant LaTour and Officer Femia, who restrained the claimant. A jury could find that LaTour and Femia initially acted within the scope of their employment by intervening to restrain an inmate during an altercation with another officer, which is a foreseeable part of their duty to maintain order. Their conduct, while enabling the assault, may have been an escalation of sanctioned conduct rather than a complete personal departure. Because the question of scope of employment is heavily fact-dependent and the State failed to eliminate factual questions regarding all three officers' actions, the issue should be decided by a jury, not by a judge on summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the limits of respondeat superior for egregious intentional torts committed by employees, even those authorized to use force. It establishes that when an employee's conduct is personally motivated, malicious, and a 'significant departure' from their duties, courts may find it to be outside the scope of employment as a matter of law. This decision makes it more challenging for plaintiffs to hold the State vicariously liable for extreme acts of violence by its employees, thereby emphasizing the importance of pleading alternative theories like negligent hiring, training, or supervision. It clarifies that foreseeability and furtherance of the employer's interest are critical factors in distinguishing excessive force from a purely personal attack.
