White v. Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc.
33 S.W.3d 713, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 650 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private employer may be held vicariously liable for the tortious actions of an off-duty police officer hired for security purposes under traditional principles of agency law, rather than by determining whether the officer's actions were 'public' or 'private' in nature.
Facts:
- On May 4, 1997, James E. Woodfin caused a disruption inside a Reveo Discount Drug Store.
- Danny Boone, an off-duty Knoxville Police Department (KPD) officer working as a security guard for Reveo, issued Woodfin a misdemeanor citation for disorderly conduct and warned him never to return.
- On June 4, 1997, the Reveo manager informed Boone that Woodfin had entered the store a few days earlier, violating the warning.
- At the manager's direction, Boone called the KPD and learned that a bench warrant had been issued for Woodfin's arrest because he failed to report for booking on the May 4 citation.
- The Reveo manager then directed Boone to go to Woodfin’s apartment to serve the bench warrant, with the stated purpose of preventing Woodfin from returning to the store.
- Boone, accompanied by several uniformed KPD officers, went to Woodfin's apartment.
- While at the scene, the Reveo manager recalled Boone to the store to issue a citation to a shoplifter, after which Boone returned to Woodfin's apartment.
- After officers forced entry into a bathroom where Woodfin had barricaded himself with a shotgun, another officer shot and mortally wounded Woodfin.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (Woodfin's estate) filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Reveo and others in the Knox County Circuit Court, the trial court of first instance.
- Reveo filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add further allegations of Reveo's control over the officer.
- After considering the amended complaint, the trial court granted Reveo's motion to dismiss.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the officer was acting in his official capacity.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, were granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, 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:
Under Tennessee law, may a private employer be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of an off-duty police officer hired for private security purposes, when those acts involve the officer's official police powers?
Opinions:
Majority - Barker, J.
Yes. A private employer may be held vicariously liable for the actions of an off-duty police officer under traditional Tennessee principles of agency law. The court rejected the 'nature-of-the-act' test, which distinguishes between an officer's 'public' and 'private' duties, as unworkable in Tennessee. This is because private security guards are statutorily authorized to perform acts that vindicate public rights (like enforcing laws on private property), and off-duty officers retain their official police powers even while privately employed. The court also dismissed public policy arguments that granting employers immunity encourages the hiring of off-duty officers for crime deterrence. Instead, the court adopted an agency-based approach, holding that the risk of loss should be allocated to the private employer who profits from the officer's services, rather than being shifted to the municipality or an innocent plaintiff. This framework allows for liability even if the act was 'official' in nature, provided an agency relationship existed and the act fell within one of the three established scenarios for liability.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the controlling legal framework in Tennessee for determining the vicarious liability of private employers who hire off-duty police officers. By rejecting the more common 'nature-of-the-act' test, the court prevents private employers from easily avoiding liability simply because their employee-officer was performing an 'official' police function. The ruling aligns this area of law with modern tort principles of risk allocation, placing the burden on the party that benefits from and controls the activity (the employer). This precedent significantly impacts businesses that use off-duty officers for security, making it clear they cannot direct officers to use their police powers for the business's benefit without also assuming the corresponding legal risks.
Unlock the full brief for White v. Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc.