You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREW PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND.

The First Department determined defendant bar’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim was properly denied. Plaintiff was thrown to the ground by the bar’s bouncer. There was a question of fact whether the bouncer was acting within the scope of his employment:

Plaintiff was assaulted by a security guard/bouncer in the employ of defendant after plaintiff, who had been denied admittance to defendant’s bar because of perceived intoxication, grabbed the baseball cap from the bouncer’s head. Less than 30 seconds elapsed between plaintiff taking the cap and the bouncer throwing plaintiff to the ground, which occurred approximately 10 feet from the entrance to defendant’s bar. On this record, it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the bouncer was acting outside the scope of his employment at the time of the assault … . Salem v MacDougal Rest. Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01832, 1st Dept 3-15-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREW PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREW PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND)

You might also like
FAILURE TO INCLUDE CITY, STATE AND/OR ZIP CODES OF THE CANDIDATES’ RESIDENCES DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS (FIRST DEPT).
​DEFENDANT DAWSON FELL ON PLAINTIFF DURING A DANCE HOSTED BY DEFENDANT NON-PROFIT, LENOX HILL; PLAINTIFF SUED LENOX HILL ALLEGING NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE DANCE; LENOX HILL DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF AND DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FIRST DEPT).
VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON CHILDREN’S CONSENT (FIRST DEPT).
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND MANAGER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE ELEVATORS SAFE AND DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A VIOLATION OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S OPINIONS, THEREBY WARRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY CONDITIONS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE CEILING COLLAPSED WHILE HE WAS TAKING OUT WALLS, THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED. PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT.