You are here: / / DEFENDANT DINER’S SECURITY GUARD KNOCKED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND...
, ,

DEFENDANT DINER’S SECURITY GUARD KNOCKED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND AND CHOKED HIM; WHETHER THE DINER DEFENDANTS ARE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH AN INTERROGATORY ON THE SCOPE-OF-EMPLOYMENT QUESTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and ordering a new trial, held the jury should have been instructed to determine whether the security guard (Vetell) who assaulted plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the assault. Apparently plaintiff left the defendant diner to get money at an ATM to pay the bill. When he retuned to the diner, the security guard knocked him to the ground and choked him:

… Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants’ counsel’s request to ask the jury to determine whether Vetell was acting within the scope of his employment when he attacked the plaintiff. The interrogatories that were given to the jury made it possible for the jury to find the appellants liable for Vetell’s acts based only on his being a special employee without determining that he was acting within the scope of his employment when he attacked the plaintiff. Since a determination that Vetell was acting within the scope of his employment is a necessary element to render the appellants vicariously liable for his acts, the court should have added the requested interrogatory to the verdict sheet … . Eaton v Fiotos, 2025 NY Slip Op 03553, Second Dept 6-10-25

Practice Point: Whether an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of an employee depends upon whether the employee’s conduct was within the scope of employment. Here the failure to so instruct the jury required a new trial.​

 

You might also like
Procedure for Determining a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss a Declaratory Judgment Action Explained
THE DOCUMENT LABELED A “SUPPLEMENTAL” BILL OF PARTICULARS WAS ACTUALLY AN “AMENDED” BILL OF PARTICULARS BECAUSE IT ADDED NEW INJURIES AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF NYC SANITATION WORKER STEPPED ON A LIVE POWER LINE AFTER HIS SUPERVISOR ALLEGEDLY TOLD HIM THE POWER WAS OFF; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL DUTY OWED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS TO THE PLAINTIFF; CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME IS THE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER AND HAD SIGNED THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT AS THE “RESPONSIBLE PARTY;” THE LANGUAGE OF THE AGREEMENT DID NOT CREATE AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND HER MOTHER; THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE ENFORCED BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).
LESSOR OF VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE BASED UPON ITS MAINTENANCE OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER OF POINTS WAS REDUCED BY THE CHANGE IN THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE RISK ASSESSMENT FROM “ARMED WITH A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” (RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD) TO “INFLICTED PERSONAL INJURY,” DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO 10 DAYS NOTICE OF THE CHANGE (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY WAS NOT REBUTTED WITH RESPECT TO MOTHER’S HUSBAND IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL UNDER A ‘BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD’ ANALYSIS TO ADJUDICATE THE RESPONDENT, WITH WHOM A CHILD-PARENT BOND HAD DEVELOPED, THE FATHER (SECOND DEPT).
No Duty Owed by Agent to Client—Client Never Requested Type of Insurance At Issue

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

THE SUPREME COURT’S PART RULES REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FIRST CONFERENCE... THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY...