Smith v. Lannert
1968 Mo. App. LEXIS 700, 429 S.W.2d 8 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is vicariously liable for an assault committed by a supervisory employee when the act, although wrongful and contrary to company policy, is committed in connection with a work-related dispute and is intended to further the employer's business interests, such as enforcing employee discipline.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was employed as a checker at a supermarket owned by Bettendorf-Rapp, Inc.
- Wesley Lannert was the store manager and the plaintiff's direct supervisor.
- On October 31, 1961, the plaintiff asked Lannert for permission to take a restroom break.
- Lannert denied the request, ordered her to return to work, and threatened to spank her if she did not comply.
- The plaintiff disregarded Lannert's order and proceeded toward the employees' lounge to take her break.
- As she reached the lounge door, Lannert grabbed her from behind, pushed her into the lounge, and struck her three times on her buttocks with his open hand.
- It was against Bettendorf-Rapp's company policy for any employee to lay hands on another employee.
- Later that day, Lannert told the plaintiff it was a good thing her cash register balanced or he would have spanked her again.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit in the trial court against her employer, Bettendorf-Rapp, Inc., and her supervisor, Wesley Lannert.
- Bettendorf-Rapp filed a cross-claim against Lannert, seeking indemnification for any damages it might have to pay.
- Bettendorf-Rapp raised the affirmative defense that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was under the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Act.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $2,500.00 against both defendants.
- The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict and also entered judgment for Bettendorf-Rapp on its cross-claim against Lannert for $2,500.00.
- Both defendants, Bettendorf-Rapp and Lannert, appealed the judgment to the intermediate 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:
Is an employer vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an assault and battery committed by a supervisory employee on a subordinate employee when the assault immediately follows the subordinate's disobedience of a direct work-related order?
Opinions:
Majority - Brady, Commissioner
Yes. An employer is vicariously liable for an assault by a supervisor if the act was intended to promote the employer's business. Here, the evidence supports a finding that Lannert acted within the scope of his employment. The court reasoned that Lannert's duties as store manager included maintaining an adequate workforce and enforcing employee discipline. The assault occurred immediately after the plaintiff disobeyed a direct work order related to her duties. A jury could reasonably infer that Lannert's act, although an exercise of bad judgment, was intended to enforce employee discipline and promote Bettendorf-Rapp's purpose of keeping employees working. The court distinguished this from a purely personal act driven by personal motives, noting the close connection in time and context to Lannert's performance of his supervisory duties. The court also held that the plaintiff's common law action was not barred by the Workmen's Compensation Act because her injury occurred while she was disobeying a direct order, thus placing her outside the 'course of' her employment for compensation purposes.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the respondeat superior doctrine to intentional torts by supervisors. It establishes that an employer's liability can attach even when an employee's act is violent, unauthorized, and expressly forbidden by company policy. The decision hinges on the employee's motive, focusing on whether the act was intended, however misguidedly, to serve the employer's interests. This precedent broadens the scope of 'furthering the master's business,' making it more difficult for employers to disclaim liability for a supervisor's misconduct when it is linked to the execution of their managerial duties, such as enforcing workplace rules.
