Medlin v. Bass
327 N.C. 587, 1990 N.C. LEXIS 985, 398 S.E.2d 460 (1990)
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 act is committed for the employee's personal purpose and is not in furtherance of the employer's business, even if the employment relationship provided the opportunity for the tort.
Facts:
- In 1968, while employed by the Rocky Mount school system, Vann J. Bass was accused of sexually assaulting a student.
- When confronted with the allegation by the Rocky Mount Superintendent, Bass resigned, citing "health reasons," and the incident was not investigated further.
- In 1969, the Franklin County Board of Education (FCB) hired Bass after its personnel checked his references, which were positive and did not reveal the prior sexual assault allegation.
- After hearing a rumor that Bass was a homosexual, an FCB administrator specifically asked the former Rocky Mount Superintendent about Bass's sexual proclivities, but the prior allegation was not disclosed.
- Bass worked for FCB for approximately sixteen years, eventually becoming a principal.
- In 1984, Principal Bass summoned the minor plaintiff, a student at his school, to his office to discuss her truancy problems.
- While the student was in his office, Bass allegedly sexually assaulted her on two separate occasions.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Medlin sued defendant Bass and later filed an amended complaint adding the Franklin County Board of Education (FCB) and Superintendent Smith, among others, in a North Carolina trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants FCB and Smith.
- Plaintiff-appellant Medlin appealed the grant of summary judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, with one judge dissenting as to the claims against FCB and Smith.
- Plaintiff-appellant Medlin appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina based on the dissent in the 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:
Does a school principal's intentional tort of sexually assaulting a student, which occurred after summoning the student to his office for a legitimate school-related purpose, fall within the course and scope of his employment, thereby making the school board liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior?
Opinions:
Majority - Whichard, Justice
No. An employee's intentional tortious act, committed for a purely personal objective, is not within the scope of employment and therefore cannot subject the employer to liability under respondeat superior. For an employer to be liable, the employee's act must be committed both within the scope of employment and in furtherance of the employer's business. While Bass used the authority of his position to summon the student to his office, the subsequent sexual assault was a completely personal act that could not conceivably advance any purpose of the Franklin County Board of Education. The act was not a means of performing his duties but was an independent act to gratify a personal motive, thus taking it outside the scope of his employment as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Martin, Justice
Yes, a jury should decide this issue. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the principal was acting within the scope of his employment, making summary judgment improper. The principal used his official authority to place the minor plaintiff in a position of complete vulnerability. The assault occurred during and was intertwined with the performance of his official duties—counseling and disciplining a student for truancy. Because the employer placed the employee in the authoritarian position that enabled the assault, the employer, not the innocent victim, should bear the risk of loss. Public policy demands that children be protected and have a meaningful remedy when harmed by those in authority.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the modern, narrower view of respondeat superior liability for intentional torts in North Carolina. It firmly establishes that the tortious act must not only occur within the general time and space of employment but must also be in furtherance of the employer's business purpose. The decision makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to hold employers vicariously liable for employees' sexual assaults by clarifying that an employee's use of job-related authority or opportunity to commit a tort is insufficient if the tort itself is for a purely personal motive. This holding provides greater protection to employers from liability for egregious, unforeseeable criminal acts by their employees.
