Sage Club v. Hunt
638 P.2d 161, 1981 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an intentional tort committed by an employee if the employee's act was committed within the scope of their employment, which includes acts that are of the kind the employee was employed to perform and where the use of force is not unexpectable by the employer.
Facts:
- The Sage Club employed Mr. Thyfault as a bartender.
- Thyfault's duties included collecting money for drinks, maintaining order, and removing disruptive customers from the premises.
- A customer, David Leland Hunt, was at the club when a dispute arose over money he had left on the bar for drinks.
- Hunt insinuated that Thyfault had taken more money than the drinks cost.
- In response to the insinuation, Thyfault jumped over the bar and physically attacked Hunt.
- Thyfault hit Hunt in the face, breaking his nose, and then threw him down a flight of stairs.
Procedural Posture:
- David Leland Hunt sued The Sage Club and its employee, Mr. Thyfault, in a Wyoming trial court for injuries sustained during an altercation.
- The trial court entered a default judgment against Mr. Thyfault.
- Following a trial, the court found The Sage Club liable on two separate legal theories: respondeat superior (vicarious liability for its employee's actions) and negligence (for continuing to employ Thyfault).
- The Sage Club, as appellant, appealed the judgment against it to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
- On appeal, The Sage Club challenged only the trial court's finding of liability under the theory of respondeat superior.
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 an employer vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an intentional tort committed by its employee when the tort arises from a dispute related to the employee's duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, Justice.
Yes, an employer is vicariously liable for an intentional tort committed by its employee if the employee is acting within the scope of employment. The court adopts the universally accepted rule that holds employers liable for the intentional torts of employees committed within the scope of employment, based on policies of employer control and risk allocation. An employee's conduct is within the scope of employment if it is 1) the kind of act they were employed to perform, 2) occurs substantially within authorized time and space, and 3) is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. For intentional torts, a key factor is whether the use of force was 'not unexpectable' by the employer. Here, the dispute began over Thyfault's duty to collect money, and his attempt to remove Hunt, while excessively violent, was related to his duty to maintain order. Given that a bartender's job can involve dealing with unruly patrons, the use of force was foreseeable, making The Sage Club liable.
Dissenting - Thomas, Justice,
The appeal should have been dismissed as moot. The trial court found The Sage Club liable on two independent grounds: respondeat superior and direct negligence for continuing to employ a known aggressive employee. The Sage Club only appealed the respondeat superior finding and did not challenge the separate finding of its own negligence. Because the judgment would be affirmed on the unchallenged negligence ground regardless of the outcome of the respondeat superior issue, any decision on the appealed issue would be purely advisory and have no practical effect on the case's outcome. Therefore, the court should not have addressed the merits of the respondeat superior argument.
Analysis:
This case formally establishes in Wyoming the majority rule that respondeat superior applies to an employee's intentional torts. The decision expands the 'scope of employment' to include foreseeable, albeit unauthorized, acts of violence that are incidental to the employee's duties. By focusing on the foreseeability of force in certain jobs, the ruling makes it more difficult for employers in industries like hospitality or security to disclaim liability by arguing an employee's assault was a 'personal' act. It solidifies the principle that businesses that place employees in potentially volatile situations bear the risk of their misconduct.
