Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffnegligenceliabilityappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentvicarious liability
plaintiffliabilityappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentwill

Related Cases

Kuhn v. Zabotsky, 9 Ohio St.2d 129, 224 N.E.2d 137, 38 O.O.2d 302
View Case »
Shirdon v. Houston, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr., 2006 WL 2522394, 2006-Ohio-4521
View Case »
Craig v. County of Chatham, 356 N.C. 40, 565 S.E.2d 172, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,823
View Case »
Scott v. City of Lynchburg, 241 Va. 64, 399 S.E.2d 809
View Case »
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,858, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,027
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gina Chin & Associates, Inc. v. First Union Bank, 260 Va. 533, 537 S.E.2d 573

Facts

Henry Steven Cardenas, a teller at First Union Bank, was involved in a forgery scheme with Amie Cheryl Lehman, who created forged checks drawn on her employer's account. Cardenas initially refused to assist but was convinced by Lehman to deposit the forged checks into her account. Over time, they deposited approximately $270,488.72 in forged checks, leading to their convictions for bank fraud. Chin, the drawer of the checks, filed a motion for judgment against First Union Bank for negligence and vicarious liability.

In 1994, Henry Steven Cardenas was employed as a teller by First Union Bank. His duties included, among other things, the receiving of cash and checks for deposit into the accounts of the bank's customers.

Issue

Did the trial court err in striking the evidence at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case-in-chief by ruling that the bank teller was acting outside the scope of his employment, thus relieving the bank of civil liability?

In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court erred in striking the evidence at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case-in-chief by ruling, as a matter of law, that a bank teller who participated in a scheme to deposit forged checks was acting outside the scope of his employment, thus relieving his employer from civil liability for those acts.

Rule

An employer is liable for the acts of an employee if the employee was acting within the scope of employment, which includes acts that are naturally incident to the business, even if the employee's specific act was wrongful or in violation of company policy.

Under well settled principles of law, we will review the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the non-moving party.

Analysis

The court found that the drawer established a prima facie case of the bank's liability by presenting uncontested evidence of the employment relationship between the teller and the bank. The teller's acceptance of checks for deposit was deemed a service within the ordinary course of the bank's business, creating a jury question regarding whether the teller acted within the scope of his employment despite his criminal acts.

Here, it may well be reasonable to conclude that a bank teller does not intend to further the interest of his employer bank when he knowingly accepts forged checks for deposit for his own gain. However, that does not resolve the legal issue presented, as a matter of law, to the trial court upon a motion to strike the injured party's evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, indicating that the issue of whether the teller acted within the scope of his employment should be determined by a jury.

For these reasons, we hold that the trial court erred in sustaining First Union's motion to strike Chin's evidence and awarding summary judgment to First Union.

Who won?

The drawer, Gina Chin & Associates, prevailed in the appeal as the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of First Union Bank.

Chin alleged that First Union was negligent when it accepted for payment checks drawn on Chin's accounts bearing both forged signatures of the drawer and forged endorsements of the payees.

You must be