Bean v. Directions Unlimited, Inc., Docket No. 114099.

• Decision Date: 02 May 2000
• Docket Number: Docket No. 114099.
• Citation: 462 Mich. 24,609 N.W.2d 567
• Parties: Patricia BEAN, Guardian and Conservator for Heather Bean, a developmentally disabled person, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIRECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

609 N.W.2d 567

462 Mich. 24

Patricia BEAN, Guardian and Conservator for Heather Bean, a developmentally disabled person, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIRECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 114099.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 2, 2000.

Tercha & Daavettila (by Robert T. Daavettila) Houghton, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Cardelli Hebert, P.C. (by Deborah A. Hebert) Royal Oak, for the defendant.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff alleged under several theories that the defendant was liable for the fact that her daughter had been sexually victimized. A jury made findings, some of which were favorable to the plaintiff. However, on the basis of the jury's other findings, the circuit court entered judgment for the defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed, and remanded for a new trial. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the circuit court.

I

Directions Unlimited, Inc., operates a drop-in center in Hancock. Directions Unlimited is wholly owned by its members, and membership is "limited to persons who are 18 years of age or older and who have experienced, and are working at recovery from an emotional or mental health problem[], including alcohol or drug addiction." Directions Unlimited is run by a board of directors selected from among the members, and is served by an executive director and sundry part-time employees, who also were members. Among the members were James Koivu, Gerald Flagle, and Heather Bean. Each was an adult whose background included the requisite mental or emotional problems, or chemical addiction.¹ Further, each had been a member before being hired as an employee, and each remained a member after the events that gave rise to this suit. Throughout the events giving rise to this suit, Ms. Bean was a legal adult without conservator or guardian.

Mr. Koivu was executive director. In that capacity he hired Mr. Flagle and Ms. Bean to work as part-time employees. At the time of hire, Mr. Koivu did not investigate Mr. Flagle's background.² Mr. Flagle's job did not include any supervision of Ms. Bean.

After hiring Mr. Flagle, Mr. Koivu learned that his past included a conviction for criminal sexual conduct involving a woman of limited mental abilities. Mr. Koivu spoke to the woman and to her fiance, and confronted Mr. Flagle, who told Mr. Koivu that he was receiving counseling. Mr. Koivu had known Mr. Flagle for several years, and this conversation satisfied him that further action was not required.

Mr. Flagle possessed a key to the drop-in center. About two years after learning of Mr. Flagle's prior conviction, Mr. Koivu discovered Ms. Bean and him in the center together at a time when it was not open. He told them that this was improper. When he again found Mr. Flagle at the center during hours when it was not open, he fired Mr. Flagle.

Mr. Koivu later heard from another member, who suspected that Mr. Flagle had been having sexual relations with Ms. Bean. Mr. Koivu asked Mr. Flagle, who was still a member and was still attending the center. He denied such improper behavior. However, when Mr. Koivu asked Ms. Bean, she admitted that she had been sexually active with Mr. Flagle.³ That day, Mr. Koivu drove to the home of Ms. Bean's parents, to tell them what he had been told.⁴

II

Ms. Bean's mother was appointed guardian, and filed the present suit against Directions Unlimited.⁵ In her complaint, she alleged negligent hiring and supervision of Mr. Flagle. She also alleged that Mr. Flagle had committed assault, battery, and criminal sexual conduct for which Directions Unlimited was responsible under the principle of respondeat superior. In an amended complaint, the plaintiff added an allegation of sexual harassment.

After the circuit court denied the defendant's motion for summary disposition, the case was tried to a jury.⁶ At the conclusion of the proceedings, the jury returned this verdict:

1. Was Defendant, Directions Unlimited, Inc., negligent in its hiring and supervision of Gerald Flagle as claimed by Plaintiff? Yes

If your answer is "no" do not answer Question No 2 and proceed to Question No 3. If your answer is "yes" proceed to Question No 2.

2. Was the negligent hiring and supervision of Gerald Flagle a proximate cause of Plaintiff's damages? NO

3. Was the conduct between Gerald Flagle and Heather Bean sexual harassment as defined by the Jury Instructions? YES

4. Did the Defendant's employee, Gerald Flagle wilfully and intentionally touch Heather Bean either without her consent or while she was mentally incapacitated or mentally incapable of giving consent? YES

5. If your answer to Question No 4 was yes, was the touching accomplished by Defendant's employee, Gerald Flagle, through the exercise of authority given to the employee by the Defendant? NO

6. Did Plaintiff, Heather Bean, sustain injury or damage? NO

If your answer is "no" do not answer any further questions. If your answer is "yes" proceed to Question No 7.

7. What is the total amount of Plaintiff, Heather Bean's damages? $0

On the basis of that verdict, the circuit court entered a judgment in favor of Directions Unlimited. Later, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for new trial or, alternatively, for additur.

Over the dissent of Judge SAAD, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial,⁷ which apparently is to be limited to the allegations concerning negligence.⁸ The majority said that proximate cause was the element in dispute and that "[t]he overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that it was Flagle's status as an employee, and his possession of keys to the facility, that created the opportunity for him to engage in sexual activity with Heather."

With regard to the allegations of assault, battery, and CSC, the majority upheld the jury's finding that Mr. Flagle's sexual touching of Ms. Bean was not accomplished through the exercise of authority given to Mr. Flagle by Directions Unlimited:

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, defendant would not be liable for torts intentionally committed by Flagle if they were beyond the scope of his master's business. [Bradley v. Stevens, 329 Mich. 556, 562, 46 N.W.2d 382 (1951) ]. Although Flagle's sexual acts with Heather occurred on defendant's premises, the incidents occurred before operating hours. Defendant created no necessity for Flagle to be in the building before hours, and derived no benefit from his presence. Flagle's presence at the drop-in center was never condoned and was finally the reason for his discharge. Based on the evidence, the jury's finding that Flagle's touching of Heather was not accomplished through the exercise of authority given to Flagle by defendant was not against the great weight of the evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on this ground.

Judge SAAD filed a brief dissent, in which he simply stated:

For the reasons stated by the majority in sustaining the trial court's decision not to grant a new trial on the claim regarding"Flagle's touching of Heather," I respectfully dissent from its decision to remand this matter for a new trial.

Directions Unlimited has applied to this Court for leave to appeal.

III

We agree with Judge SAAD. While Mr. Flagle and Ms. Bean were fellow employees, they also were fellow members and owners of defendant Directions Unlimited. Viewing the proofs in the light most favorable to the defendant (in whose favor the circuit court entered judgment), the misconduct on the part of Mr. Flagle did not come through any exercise of authority over Ms. Bean. Similarly, the evidence in this case would have allowed the jury to conclude that Mr. Flagle's actions with Ms. Bean were not the product of the employment relationship.

Though the parties do not approach the case in this manner, we are reminded of the principles stated in Granger v. Fruehauf Corp., 429 Mich. 1, 412 N.W.2d 199 (1987), and Lagalo v. Allied Corp., 457 Mich. 278, 577 N.W.2d 462 (1998). A jury's verdict is to be upheld, even if it is arguably inconsistent, "[i]f there is an interpretation of the evidence that provides a logical explanation for the findings of the jury." 429 Mich. at 7, 412 N.W.2d 199. In deciding whether to grant a new trial, a circuit court must "make every effort to reconcile the seemingly inconsistent verdicts." 457 Mich. at 282, 577 N.W.2d 462. Further, such an effort "requires a careful look, beyond the legal principles underlying the plaintiff's causes of action, at how those principles were argued and applied in the context of this specific case." 457 Mich. at 284-285, 577 N.W.2d 462.

In the present case, the jury found that Directions Unlimited had been negligent in hiring and supervising Mr. Flagle, but that the negligent hiring and supervision was not a proximate cause of the harm suffered by Ms. Bean. The latter finding can be explained in light of the multiple roles of these persons who, simultaneously and interchangeably, were members, owners, employees, and patrons of the Directions Unlimited drop-in center. The contrary conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals also reflects plausible inferences from the testimony. However, in reviewing a circuit court's decision to deny a motion for new trial, the reviewing court must not substitute its own view of the evidence.

The jury further found that Mr. Flagle had engaged in sexual harassment, and that he touched Ms. Bean either without her consent or while her mental abilities precluded a meaningful consent. The jury went on to find that Mr. Flagle's misconduct was not accomplished through an exercise of authority given him by Directions Unlimited⁹ and that Ms. Bean did not suffer injury or damage.¹⁰ However, the jury's finding that the misconduct did not occur pursuant to authority granted by Directions Unlimited has ample evidentiary support, and thus, like the Court of Appeals, we need not reach the question of damages.

This is an...