Kuehn v. White
24 Wash. App. 274, 1979 Wash. App. LEXIS 2696, 600 P.2d 679 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an intentional tort, such as an assault, committed by an employee when the employee acts purely for personal reasons and not in furtherance of the employer's business.
Facts:
- Richard K. White, an employee of Inter-City Auto Freight, Inc., was driving an Inter-City truck when he swerved into the traffic lane of Elzear Kuehn.
- After Kuehn avoided a collision, he caught up to the truck and motioned for White to pull over.
- White responded aggressively, shaking a fist and weaving the truck towards Kuehn's car before both vehicles pulled over to the shoulder.
- White exited his truck carrying a 2-foot-long metal pipe belonging to Inter-City.
- White stated he was angry because he believed Kuehn had given him "the finger."
- White then struck Kuehn multiple times on the head with the pipe, causing significant injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. and Mrs. Kuehn filed a civil action against Richard K. White and his employer, Inter-City Auto Freight, Inc., in a state trial court.
- Inter-City Auto Freight, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the case against it.
- The trial court granted Inter-City's motion for summary judgment of dismissal.
- The Kuehns, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should Washington abandon the traditional rule that an employer is not liable for an assault committed by an employee for personal purposes, in favor of a broader rule imposing liability when the dispute arises out of the employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Callow, C.J.
No. The established Washington rule, which holds that an employer is not liable for an assault committed by an employee for his own purposes, should not be abandoned. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is only responsible for an employee's acts when they are within the scope of employment and in furtherance of the employer's business. If an employee 'steps aside' from the employer's business to act on personal motives such as ill will or anger, the employer is not liable. In this case, White's assault on Kuehn was motivated by personal anger and was not done to serve his employer, Inter-City. The court explicitly rejected the broader California 'enterprise risk' theory, which would hold employers liable for risks inherent in the business, stating that such a significant change in social policy is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Washington's adherence to the traditional, narrow 'scope of employment' test for vicarious liability concerning an employee's intentional torts. By rejecting the more modern 'enterprise risk' theory, the court maintains a clear but restrictive standard, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to hold employers liable for assaults that are not directly in furtherance of the employer's business. The court's deference to the legislature signals that any expansion of employer liability in this area must come from statutory change, solidifying a predictable legal landscape for employers in the state.
Unlock the full brief for Kuehn v. White