Plummer v. Center Psychiatrists, Ltd.
1996 Va. LEXIS 94, 476 S.E.2d 172, 252 Va. 233 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be liable for an employee's intentional tort, even if committed for a malicious or personal motive, if the tortious act was committed within the scope of the employee's duties and in the execution of the service for which the employee was engaged.
Facts:
- Katrina Q. Plummer was suffering from depression and had a history of suicide attempts.
- Plummer sought therapy and counseling services from Dr. Roque Gerald, a licensed clinical psychologist.
- Dr. Gerald was employed by Center Psychiatrists, Ltd. and was aware of Plummer's fragile psychological and emotional history.
- On February 8, 1989, during a counseling session at the offices of Center Psychiatrists, Ltd., Dr. Gerald engaged in an act of sexual intercourse with Plummer.
- Plummer alleged that Dr. Gerald used his education, experience, and knowledge of her condition to overcome her will, rendering her unable to act with volition.
Procedural Posture:
- Katrina Q. Plummer filed a motion for judgment (sued) Center Psychiatrists, Ltd. in a Virginia trial court.
- Plummer's claim was based on assault and battery, alleging Center Psychiatrists was vicariously liable for the acts of its employee, Dr. Gerald.
- Center Psychiatrists, Ltd. filed a demurrer, arguing that as a matter of law, Dr. Gerald's actions were outside the scope of his employment.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing Plummer's case against Center Psychiatrists, Ltd.
- Plummer (as appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
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 psychologist's act of engaging in sexual intercourse with a patient during a therapy session constitute an act outside the scope of employment as a matter of law, thereby precluding the employer's liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hassell
No. A psychologist's act of engaging in sexual intercourse with a patient during a therapy session does not, as a matter of law, fall outside the scope of employment. The test for employer liability is not the employee's motive, but whether the act was committed within the scope of the duties of employment and in the execution of the service for which the employee was engaged. Citing Commercial Business Systems v. BellSouth, the court reasoned that even outrageous and personally motivated acts can be within the scope of employment if they are committed while the employee is performing their job duties. Here, Plummer's allegations state that Gerald's act occurred during a counseling session and that he used the knowledge and power gained through his employment to overcome her will. Therefore, the question of whether Gerald was acting within the scope of his employment is a matter for a jury to decide.
Dissenting - Justice Koontz
Yes. A psychologist's act of engaging in sexual intercourse with a patient during a therapy session is outside the scope of employment as a matter of law. The dissent argues that Dr. Gerald's act was not a slight deviation but a 'great and unusual' deviation from his employer's business. He necessarily stepped aside from his employer's business to engage in an independent venture of his own for personal reasons. A sexual assault is so extreme and unrelated to the duties of a psychologist that it falls well beyond the scope of employment, and the court should decide this as a matter of law rather than sending it to a jury. The dissent also notes that this view is in accord with the majority of other jurisdictions.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the potential for employer liability for intentional torts under the doctrine of respondeat superior in Virginia. It shifts the legal inquiry from the employee's subjective motive to the objective context of the tort, focusing on whether the employment provided the opportunity and means for the wrongful act. By classifying the scope of employment question as an issue for the jury even in cases of egregious misconduct, the ruling makes it more difficult for employers to obtain dismissal at the pleading stage. This precedent forces employers in professional service fields to consider that they may be held liable for personal, abusive acts of their employees if those acts are intertwined with the performance of professional duties.
