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

tortplaintiffliabilityverdictwillsustained

defendantappealtrialverdicttestimonymotionwillsustainedmotion for directed verdict

Related Cases

Miller v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 364 Mass. 340, 304 N.E.2d 573

Facts

On May 8, 1968, Bertha Miller was shopping at Federated's Filene's store in Boston when she was assaulted by an employee, William Melnick. Melnick, a porter, had been pushing a cart through the aisles when he allegedly 'sideswiped' Miller. After a brief exchange, Melnick punched Miller in the face. While Miller claimed she was not obstructing Melnick's work, Melnick testified that she had previously obstructed him and had been harassing him, which led to the assault.

On the morning of May 8, 1968, Mrs. Miller was shopping in Federated (Filene's basement store) in Boston. William Melnick was on the premises in his capacity as a porter, his duties consisting of cleaning the floors and emptying trash containers.

Issue

Whether Federated Department Stores is liable for the intentional tort of its employee, William Melnick, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

The only issue presented was whether the trial judge erred in denying its motion for directed verdicts on counts 1 and 3.

Rule

An employer is not liable for an employee's intentional tort unless the act was committed in the course of the employee's work and in response to conduct that interfered with the employee's ability to perform their duties.

To hold otherwise would render employers liable for the most irrational and misguided conduct which an employee might have thought he committed for the purpose of accomplishing his work.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, focusing on whether Melnick's actions were in response to any interference from Miller. It concluded that Miller's conduct did not obstruct Melnick's ability to perform his duties at the time of the assault. The court emphasized that merely believing the employee was acting in the employer's interest is insufficient for establishing liability; the assault must be directly related to the employee's work.

On the basis of her testimony, there was no evidence that Melnick's assault was in response to an interference on her part with his present ability to successfully perform his duties.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Federated was entitled to directed verdicts on the counts against it, as the assault was not within the scope of Melnick's employment. Therefore, the exceptions were sustained, and judgment was entered for Federated.

Exceptions sustained. Judgments for the defendant Federated Department Stores, Inc.

Who won?

Federated Department Stores, Inc. prevailed because the court found that the employee's assault was not within the scope of his employment, as it was not in response to any interference from the plaintiff.

The Appeals Court held that the trial judge erred in denying the motion for directed verdicts in favor of Federated.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Mosser v. Darrow, 341 U.S. 267, 71 S.Ct. 680, 95 L.Ed. 927

Rosenfeld v. Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp., 284 A.D. 201, 132 N.Y.S.2d 273

Secretary of Agriculture v. United States, 350 U.S. 162, 76 S.Ct. 244, 100 L.Ed. 173

Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539, 37 S.Ct. 217, 61 L.Ed. 480, L.R.A. 1917F, 514, 15 Ohio Law Rep. 39, Am.Ann.Cas. 1917C, 643

Zimmerman v. Braddock, Not Reported in A.2d, 2005 WL 2266566