Negligent Supervision Cause of Action Properly Survived Summary Judgment—Question of Fact Raised Whether Criminal Act by Defendant’s Employee Was Foreseeable
Plaintiff’s child was injured when assaulted by an employee of defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) during the course of a NYCTA community service program. The Second Department determined defendant could not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because the actions of the employee were outside the scope of employment. However, the cause of action for negligent supervision properly survived the motion for summary judgment because there was a question of fact whether the criminal act of the employee was foreseeable:
“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment” … . Here, the evidence submitted by the NYCTA demonstrated that Clay’s conduct clearly was not in furtherance of the NYCTA’s business and was a departure from the scope of his employment, having been committed for wholly personal motives … . * * *
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the NYCTA’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it negligently supervised the plaintiff’s child. The standard for determining whether a duty to supervise a minor was breached is “whether a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the identical situation and armed with the same information would invariably have provided greater supervision” … . “Where third-party criminal acts intervene between defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s injuries, the causal connection may be severed, precluding liability. The criminal intervention of third parties may, however, be a reasonably foreseeable’ consequence of circumstances created by the defendant” … . Mayo v New York City Tr Auth, 2015 NY Slip OP 00342, 2nd Dept 1-14-15