You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF AT JFK AIRPORT WAS...
,

ALTHOUGH THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF AT JFK AIRPORT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, HE WAS NOT ON DUTY AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT; THE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this vicarious liability, negligent hiring and supervision and premises liability action should have been granted. Plaintiff was allegedly assaulted by Miles, who worked for American Airlines, at JFK airport (owned by defendant Port Authority). Plaintiff sued under respondeat superior and negligence theories. Miles testified he was not on duty at the time of the incident:

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for intentional torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment, as long as those acts were “generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . Where the material facts are not in dispute, the question whether respondeat superior liability attaches is one of law and can be determined on a motion for summary judgment … . Here the threshold question is whether Miles was even working, or under the direction of American, at the time of the incident. … [D]efendants attached the deposition transcript of Miles, who testified that he was not working at the time of the incident. This was sufficient to at least satisfy defendants’ prima facie burden … .

Because the testimony of Miles, who, notably, is not a party to this action, was that he was not on duty when the altercation occurred, defendants shifted the burden on the issue of respondeat superior. Moreover, Miles’s testimony about his job responsibilities — escorting planes in and out, and loading and unloading luggage — established prima facie that the foreseeability element of respondeat superior liability was not present. The alleged assault bore no connection to plaintiff’s work duties, and thus was not “in furtherance of any employer-related goal whatsoever”  Summors v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2022 NY Slip Op 01891, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: An American Airlines employee allegedly assaulted plaintiff at JFK airport. The defendants demonstrated the American Airlines employee was not on duty at the time of the incident, which was deemed fatal to respondeat superior (vicarious) liability.

 

You might also like
All Ambiguities Re: Letters of Credit Resolved Against the Issuer—“Independence Principle” Applied—Beneficiaries of Letters of Credit Entitled to Payment
First Degree Burglary Conviction Upheld Even though the Residential Portion of the Building Was Not Accessible from the Basement of the First-Floor Store Where the Defendant Entered the Building
THE HARASSMENT-RELATED SPEECH PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT THE PROVISION PROHIBITING RESPONDENT FROM DISCSUSSING THE PETITIONER OR THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING WAS STRUCK FROM THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AS UNNECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON AN UNEVEN MAT WHEN SHE STEPPED OFF THE DEFENDANT’S SKATING RINK; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COMPANY WHICH SOLD AND INSTALLED THE MAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THE SKATING RINK AND THE SELLER/INSTALLER OF THE MAT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE SELLER/INSTALLER OF THE MAT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).
THE SMALL CONCRETE PEBBLES UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED DID NOT CONSTITUTE A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE AND WERE NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Conveyance from Mother to Son Not Made in “Good Faith” and Therefore Was Constructively Fraudulent
THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFFS’ INSURANCE BROKERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE BROKERS FAILED TO PROCURE ADEQUATE COVERAGE AND FAILED TO INFORM PLAINTIFFS OF THE DEFINITIONS AND TERMS OF THE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (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

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SEE ICE ON THE PARKING LOT RAISED... DEFENDANT COMMODITY FUTURES BROKER IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER FIDELITY BONDS...