Harvey Freeman & Sons, Inc. v. Stanley, s. 76387
| Decision Date | 28 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | 76388,Nos. 76387,s. 76387 |
| Citation | 375 S.E.2d 261,189 Ga.App. 256 |
| Parties | HARVEY FREEMAN & SONS, INC. v. STANLEY et al. HARVEY FREEMAN & SONS, INC. v. RIVERS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
R. Chris Irwin & Associates, R. Chris Irwin, Kathleen M. Pacious, Atlanta, for appellant.
Calabro, Vogel & Jennette, Michael M. Calabro, James R. Vogel, Larry F. Jennette, Jr., Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Marvin A. Devlin, Atlanta, for appellees.
Appellee-plaintiffs are minor female residents of an apartment complex owned by appellant-defendant. Appellees filed separate complaints against appellant, each alleging that she had been subjected to an ongoing series of sexually abusive acts which had been committed by Mrs. Sandy Clark and her husband.
Appellant answered, denying the material allegations of appellees' complaints. After a period of discovery, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment in each case. The trial court granted the motions as to appellant's liability under the theory of respondeat superior. However, the trial court denied the motions as to appellant's liability for its own alleged negligent hiring or retention of the resident manager. The trial court certified for immediate review its denials of appellant's motions for summary judgment. Appellant's applications to this court for an interlocutory appeal were granted. Because appellant's appeals are based upon essentially the same factual occurrences and raise the identical legal issues, they are hereby consolidated for disposition in this single opinion.
The evidence showed that Sandy Clark was a resident manager of Bingham Court Apartments owned by Harvey Freeman & Sons, Inc., at the time the alleged events occurred. Mrs. Clark, as resident manager, and her husband, Daniel Clark, were provided an apartment on the premises. At the apartment complex the Clarks repeatedly participated in illegal and immoral conduct on the premises of Bingham Court Apartments of which other employees of Harvey Freeman had knowledge. For example, the Clarks engaged in swapping sexual partners with other residents of the apartments; Mrs. Clark admitted to having had lesbian relations with another tenant; and other residents testified that they were asked by the Clarks to be involved in a sexual threesome.
Additionally, the Clarks possessed, used, and sold drugs on the premises of Bingham Court Apartments. Mrs. Clark admitted in her deposition testimony that Jenny Raffa, the assistant manager, was aware of such conduct. Also, several tenants testified that the Clarks' possession, use, and sale of illegal drugs was "common knowledge" at the apartment complex.
The acts appellees complain of occurred during the summer of 1985. During this time, both young girls were tenants of Bingham Court Apartments; one appellee was 14 years old; the other appellee was 13 years old at the start of the summer, but became 14 years old on July 5th.
On June 28, 1985, Dan Clark led one appellee to the resident manager's unit to "show her something." Once inside, Clark forced sexual relations with her. Subsequent to this occurrence, Sandy Clark attempted to make her take oral contraceptives.
The second incident occurred later in July, when the Clarks had arranged to take both appellees on a camping trip to the lake. Although they were scheduled to leave on Friday, the Clarks were not prepared, so the two girls spent the night at the Clarks' apartment. During the evening, the Clarks supplied the girls with alcohol and marijuana, and then insisted that the two minors undress and take a shower with them. After the shower, the two were led to the bedroom where both Sandy and Dan Clark fondled them.
Because the young girls were confused and felt that what had occurred the night before would be inexplicable to their parents, the appellees made the trip to the lake with the Clarks the following day instead of going home. Once at the lake, however, they realized the Clarks intended to repeat the same conduct of the night before. One appellee was able to procure a ride back to the apartments on a motorcycle, but, because no other form of transportation was available, the other appellee was forced to stay. During the course of the day, the Clarks supplied this appellee with marijuana laced with cocaine. Later, both Sandy and Dan Clark fondled her and, despite her protests, Dan proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her. Held:
1. Appellant contends that the theory of negligent hiring/retention is conceptually inappropriate under the facts of the present case, relying on Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Stegall, 184 Ga.App. 27, 360 S.E.2d 619 (1987), which states: Lear Siegler, supra at 28, 360 S.E.2d 619.
In Lear Siegler, the defendant's employee had an automobile accident while he was driving a company-supplied vehicle to work. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent in its hiring of the employee, but this court held that "under the facts of this case" the theory of negligent hiring was conceptually inapplicable. Id. In effect, the holding in Lear Siegler acts to shield employers from liability for those torts his employee commits on the public in general. In the present case, however, the alleged tortious conduct was committed, not on the public in general, but on two young girls who were associated with appellant through a landlord-tenant relationship. Because of the special relationship existing between appellant and appellees in the present case, the potential direct liability of employers would not rest simply upon their hiring or retention of an employee without regard to whether the employee had committed a tort while ostensibly acting in the capacity of employee.
Furthermore, as landlord, Harvey Freeman, chose to bestow the comprehensive duties of resident manager to Sandy Clark. Mrs. Clark testified in her deposition that as resident manager, she was expected to be available to the tenants 24 hours a day.
The facts of this case do not fit the rule of Lear Siegler. It is for the jury to determine whether appellant, as landlord, sufficiently fulfilled its duty to exercise ordinary care in the hiring/retention of Clark.
2. Appellant also contends that there was no evidence showing that it had actual or constructive knowledge that the Clarks presented a danger to the residents of Bingham Court Apartments, and that the trial court erred in allowing information possessed by the assistant manager, Jenny Raffa, to be imputable to appellant. Both contentions are without merit.
(a) The appropriate standard of care in a negligent hiring/retention action is whether the employer knew or should have known the employee was not suited for the particular employment. Cherry v. Kelly Svcs., 171 Ga.App. 235, 236, 319 S.E.2d 463 (1984); Lear, supra. Mrs. Clark, in her deposition testimony, admitted that her drug use and Mr. Clark's was common knowledge among the other apartment dwellers. Also, the evidence shows that several of the tenants and employees of Bingham Court knew of the Clark's sexual perversity. Therefore, a sufficient evidentiary basis existed creating a genuine issue of fact as to whether Harvey Freeman had either actual or constructive knowledge of the Clarks' tendencies.
(b) Concerning the contention that the knowledge of the assistant manager cannot be attributable to him, knowledge of an employee's superior concerning practices of that employee is attributable to the corporation. American Oil Co. v. McCluskey, 119 Ga.App. 475, 167 S.E.2d 711 (1969).
As assistant manager, Raffa was required to assume the duties of resident manager if Sandy Clark was unavailable or if the necessity otherwise arose. Because Sandy Clark was responsible for illegal and immoral conduct on the apartment premises, and the evidence shows that Raffa knew of this conduct, Raffa then was required to assume the role of resident manager and rectify the situation. Under these circumstances and American Oil, Raffa's knowledge is imputable to the appellant corporation.
3. Appellant claims the trial court erred in failing to determine that appellees' cause of action is barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk as provided by OCGA § 51-11-7: "If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant's negligence, he is not entitled to recover." (Emphasis supplied.) That Code section, however, has no bearing in this case, because the injurious acts were intentional sexual assaults, and not merely negligent acts.
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.
I cannot concur in Division 1, wherein the majority affirms the trial court's denial of appellant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of its liability for the alleged negligent hiring or retention of Mrs. Clark. After reviewing the record, I am convinced that the instant case is controlled by our decision in Lear Siegler, Inc v. Stegall, 184 Ga.App. 27, 360 S.E.2d 619 (1987). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TGM Ashley Lakes, Inc. v. Jennings, No. A03A1401.
...committed the tort in a setting or under circumstances wholly unrelated to his employment. See Harvey Freeman & Sons, Inc. v. Stanley, 189 Ga.App. 256, 257-258(1), 375 S.E.2d 261 (1988), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on separate grounds, 259 Ga. 233, 378 S.E.2d 857 (1989); Lear Siegler, I......
-
Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...in the sale of the rifle to Brown; she could not even know Brown had purchased a weapon. Plaintiff cites Freeman & Sons, Inc. v. Stanley, 189 Ga.App. 256, 258, 375 S.E.2d 261 (1988), rev'd in part, 259 Ga. 233, 378 S.E.2d 857 (1989), and American Oil Co. v. McCluskey, 119 Ga.App. 475, 476, ......
-
Smith v. Danson
...has been used occasionally since that time. See Ellis v. Dalton, 194 Ga.App. 114, 389 S.E.2d 797 (1989) ; Harvey Freeman & Sons, Inc. v. Stanley, 189 Ga.App. 256, 375 S.E.2d 261 (1988) ; Travillian v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 182 Ga.App. 241, 355 S.E.2d 677 (1987) ; Howard v. Superior......
-
Underberg v. Southern Alarm, Inc., A06A2349.
...(2004). 15. Supra. 16. Id. at 459(1)(a), 590 S.E.2d 807. 17. Id. at 462(1)(b), 590 S.E.2d 807, citing Harvey Freeman & Sons v. Stanley, 189 Ga.App. 256, 257(1), 375 S.E.2d 261 (1988), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 259 Ga. 233, 378 S.E.2d 857 18. (Citation omitted.) TGM A......