Norwood v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
200 A.D.3d 891, 2021 NY Slip Op 07006, 159 N.Y.S.3d 482 (2021)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for the intentional torts of an employee, including the use of prohibited physical force or weapons, if the employee was acting within the scope of their employment duties to maintain order and security, unless the employee was acting solely for personal motives.

Facts:

Plaintiff Norwood and his friends went to the AMC Lowes Roosevelt Field 8 movie theater, where they were accused of 'causing a ruckus' by theater manager Eric Adams.
A verbal dispute arose at the concession stand between Norwood and Adams, leading Adams to ask the group to leave.
As the argument escalated, Adams produced a collapsible baton from his pocket, prompting Norwood to laugh and the group to subsequently request refunds and exit the building.
While Norwood stood on the sidewalk outside, Adams went to his personal vehicle, retrieved an airsoft pellet pistol attached to a utility belt, and returned to the front of the theater.
The altercation resumed on the sidewalk, where Adams allegedly pointed the pellet gun at Norwood.
Adams testified that he returned to the scene because, as a manager, he could not leave and believed Norwood might have been retrieving a weapon.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff commenced an action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, against Simon Property Group, AMC entities, and Adams for assault, battery, and vicarious liability.
The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the motion and dismissed the complaint against the corporate defendants.
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division, Second Department.

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 a movie theater operator vicariously liable for its manager's use of a weapon against a patron when the manager was tasked with security duties but explicitly prohibited from possessing weapons?

Opinions:

Majority - Memorandum Decision

Yes, a movie theater operator may be liable for its manager's misconduct because a jury could find that the manager was acting in furtherance of the employer's interests rather than solely for personal reasons. The court reasoned that under the doctrine of respondeat superior, liability depends on whether the employee was doing the master's work, regardless of how irregularly or in disregard of instructions it was performed. While the AMC Manager's Handbook prohibited weapons, it also obligated managers to handle disruptive guests and ensure safety. The court cited Riviello v Waldron, noting that an employer is not excused merely because an employee exhibits human failings or performs negligently. Although Adams's use of weapons was against policy, his specific duties involved maintaining order, making his use of force broadly foreseeable. The court distinguished this from cases where employees act solely for personal motives, concluding that a jury must determine whether Adams acted to protect the theater or out of personal animosity.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the broad scope of respondeat superior in New York, particularly regarding employees with security-like functions. It clarifies that an employer cannot shield itself from liability simply by creating a handbook policy prohibiting specific acts (like carrying weapons) if the employee's underlying duties (maintaining order/security) naturally create the risk of such conduct. The court emphasizes that 'scope of employment' is a fact-intensive inquiry for a jury, not a matter of law for summary judgment, whenever an employee's aggressive behavior arguably serves the employer's interest in controlling a premises. This ruling makes it more difficult for employers to obtain summary judgment in cases involving employee assault where the employee has any disciplinary or security responsibilities.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Norwood v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc. (2021)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"