Buck v. Zwelling
| Decision Date | 10 May 2000 |
| Citation | 272 A.D.2d 895,707 N.Y.S.2d 281 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | STEVEN T. BUCK, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>THOMAS C. ZWELLING, Defendant, and NIAGARA FALLS COACH LINES, INC., Respondent. |
Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of the motion of Niagara Falls Coach Lines, Inc. (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for the negligent hiring, retention and supervision of its employee, defendant Thomas C. Zwelling. Defendant established that it neither knew nor should have known of any verbal or physical assaults or batteries by Zwelling to support that cause of action (see, Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese, 229 AD2d 159, 161, cert denied 522 US 967, lv dismissed 91 NY2d 848). Morever, "[t]here is no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee" (Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at 163). Because defendant hired Zwelling after he served as Superintendent of the Niagara Falls Police Department, it cannot be said that defendant was negligent in failing to investigate Zwelling's background (see, Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at 163-164).
We reject plaintiff's contention that defendant had a duty to investigate Zwelling's employment records pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509-d. Defendant hired Zwelling as its general manager, not as a "new bus driver" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509-d [1]). Moreover, the purpose of investigating the background of a new bus driver is to protect the safety of the carrier's passengers, not the safety of other employees.
We conclude that the court erred, however, in granting that part of the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action for assault and battery and defamation against it. An employer may be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for intentional torts (see, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 304; Rausman v Baugh, 248 AD2d 8, 11), and the issue whether an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment is ordinarily for jury resolution (see, Riviello v Waldron, supra, at 302-303). Here, defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that Zwelling was not acting within the scope of his employment. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrath v. Nassau Health Care Corp.
...for their employees' intentional torts if the tortfeasor was acting within the scope of his employment. See Buck v. Zwelling, 272 A.D.2d 895, 707 N.Y.S.2d 281, 282 (N.Y.App.Div.2000). An employee's conduct is within the scope of his employment if the employer could have reasonably foreseen ......
-
Pater v. City of Buffalo
...inasmuch as they did not know of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the employee (see Buck v. Zwelling, 272 A.D.2d 895, 895, 707 N.Y.S.2d 281 ; Kenneth R., 229 A.D.2d at 163, 654 N.Y.S.2d 791 ; see also Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 N.Y.2d 932, 933–......
-
Wait v. Beck's North America, Inc.
...N.E.2d 1051 (1979); Riviello v. Waldron, 47 N.Y.2d 297, 418 N.Y.S.2d 300, 391 N.E.2d 1278 (1979); see also Buck v. Zwelling, 272 A.D.2d 895, 896, 707 N.Y.S.2d 281 (4th Dep't 2000); Patterson v. Khan, 240 A.D.2d 644, 659 N.Y.S.2d 90 (2d Dep't 1997). "[T]he employer may be liable when the emp......
-
Fika Midwifery PLLC v. Indep. Health Ass'n, Inc.
...scope of employment" ( Votsis v. ADP, LLC , 187 A.D.3d 1490, 1491, 132 N.Y.S.3d 190 [4th Dept. 2020] ; see Buck v. Zwelling , 272 A.D.2d 895, 896, 707 N.Y.S.2d 281 [4th Dept. 2000] ; see generally Riviello v. Waldron , 47 N.Y.2d 297, 302-303, 418 N.Y.S.2d 300, 391 N.E.2d 1278 [1979] ). "An ......