Riviello v. Waldron
391 N.E.2d 1278, 418 N.Y.S.2d 300, 47 N.Y.2d 297 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee's negligent act if the act is a generally foreseeable and natural incident of the employment, and a plaintiff's release of the employee does not bar a claim against the employer because vicarious liability is based on indemnity, not contribution.
Facts:
- Raybele Tavern, Inc. operated the Pot Belly Pub and hired Joseph Waldron as a short-order cook.
- Waldron's duties also included waiting on tables, tending bar, and mingling with patrons, as his familiarity with the neighborhood clientele was expected to enhance business.
- On the night of the incident, Waldron was conversing with a regular patron, Donald Riviello, and another friend at the bar during a lull in his cooking duties.
- During the conversation about street crime, Waldron displayed a pocketknife he said he carried for protection.
- Waldron then left to fill a food order in the kitchen.
- Several minutes later, as Waldron returned from the kitchen still holding the knife, Riviello turned suddenly, and his eye came into contact with the knife blade, causing severe injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Riviello sued Raybele Tavern, Inc. in a New York trial court based on a theory of vicarious liability for the negligence of its employee, Joseph Waldron.
- Before trial, Riviello settled with Waldron's personal insurer for $25,000, executing a general release that reserved his rights against Raybele.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Riviello, and the trial court entered a judgment against Raybele for $200,000, later amended to reflect the $25,000 settlement.
- Raybele, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, holding that Waldron's actions were outside the scope of his employment as a matter of law.
- Riviello, as appellant, then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest 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:
Does an employee's negligent act of mishandling a personal knife while socializing with patrons fall within the scope of employment for vicarious liability purposes, and does a plaintiff's release of that employee also release the employer under General Obligations Law § 15-108?
Opinions:
Majority - Fuchsberg, J.
No. The act was not outside the scope of employment as a matter of law, and the release does not bar the claim against the employer. An employer is vicariously liable for an employee's tort under the doctrine of respondeat superior if the act occurred while the employee was doing the employer's work, regardless of how irregularly. The determination of whether an act is within the scope of employment is a question for the jury, guided by factors including the foreseeability of the general type of conduct, not the specific act. Here, Waldron's socializing was part of his job, and it was foreseeable that he might carelessly handle a personal object during lulls in his duties, causing injury. Furthermore, General Obligations Law § 15-108, which governs the effect of a release given to one tortfeasor, applies to contribution among culpable parties, not to indemnity. Vicarious liability creates a right of indemnity, where the employer can seek full reimbursement from the negligent employee, rather than contribution, which apportions fault. Therefore, releasing the employee does not extinguish the separate, vicarious liability of the employer.
Concurring - Jones, J.
I concur in the result. The majority opinion is overly broad and addresses matters not necessary for the resolution of this appeal.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the modern, broader interpretation of the 'scope of employment' for vicarious liability, shifting the focus from an employee's specific, authorized tasks to the general foreseeability of their conduct within the work environment. It confirms that incidental acts, such as socializing or momentary inattention during a work lull, can still give rise to employer liability. The ruling also provides critical clarification on statutory interpretation, preventing General Obligations Law § 15-108 from becoming a trap that extinguishes a plaintiff's claim against a vicariously liable employer after a settlement with the primary negligent employee, thereby preserving a vital path to recovery.
