Nathans v. Offerman

• Citation: 922 F.Supp.2d 271
• Decision Date: 06 February 2013
• Docket Number: No. 3:09–cv–00256–WWE.,3:09–cv–00256–WWE.
• Parties: Johnathan NATHANS, Plaintiff, Baseball and Sports Associates, LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff, v. Jose OFFERMAN and The Long Island Ducks Professional Baseball Club, LLC, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

922 F.Supp.2d 271

Johnathan NATHANS, Plaintiff,Baseball and Sports Associates, LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff,

v.Jose OFFERMAN and The Long Island Ducks Professional Baseball Club, LLC, Defendants.

No. 3:09–cv–00256–WWE.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Feb. 6, 2013.

J. Craig Smith, Joshua D. Koskoff, Sean K. McElligott, Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C., Bridgeport, CT, for Plaintiff.

Michael V. Vocalina, Cotter, Cotter & Mullins, Trumbull, CT, for Intervenor Plaintiff.

Eileen R. Becker, Patrick G. Hughes, Loughlin Fitzgerald, P.C., Wallingford, CT, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WARREN W. EGINTON, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff Johnathan Nathans (“Nathans”) filed this action against defendants Jose Offerman (“Offerman”) and the Long Island Ducks Professional Baseball Club, LLC (“Ducks”) alleging (1) assault and battery, (2) negligence, and (3) reckless assault and battery, all stemming from an altercation during a professional baseball game in Bridgeport, Connecticut on August 14, 2007. Defendant Ducks have moved for summary judgment in its favor and against plaintiff Nathans on plaintiff's entire case against it, as well as against the intervening plaintiff Baseball and Sports Associates, LLC.

First, the Ducks argue that it cannot be held vicariously liable for defendant Offerman's conduct because his conduct was outside the scope and course of his employment with the Ducks and did not further the interests or business of the Ducks. Second, the Ducks contend that as a co-participant in a team contact sport, Offerman cannot be held liable to plaintiff. Accordingly, as a plaintiff cannot recover more compensatory damages from a principal than it could from an agent-tortfeasor, the Ducks, as principal, cannot be held liable to plaintiff for Offerman's tortious conduct. Finally, the Ducks assert that even if it could be held liable under principles of respondeat superior, it cannot be held liable for punitive damages.

For the following reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Offerman was the lead-off hitter for the Long Island Ducks in their August 2007 matchup against plaintiff Nathans and the Bridgeport Bluefish. The Ducks and Bluefish are professional baseball teams in the independent Atlantic League of Professional Baseball. Offerman, a former Major League All–Star, at 38 years old, was in the twilight of his career. Nathans was an experienced catcher who had been part of the Boston Red Sox farm club and was playing in the Atlantic League to gain game experience and further his own career as a catcher.

Offerman stepped to the plate and hit the first pitch of the game over the outfield wall for a home run. Bluefish pitcher Matt Beech faced eight of nine Ducks battersin the first inning, allowing three runs. The Ducks were still leading three to zero when the team came up to bat again in the second inning. After the Ducks' ninth batter flied out to center field, Offerman came up for his second at-bat of the game. Beech threw the first pitch, a cut fastball, for a strike (swinging). Beech decided to throw the same pitch again. This time, the pitch moved downward out of the strike zone and struck Offerman on the left calf. Because he was hit by a pitch, the batter was awarded first base. Instead of taking his base, Offerman charged the pitcher's mound with his baseball bat in hand.

Matt Beech stood his ground when he saw Offerman approaching with the bat. Meanwhile, plaintiff Nathans, the catcher for the Bluefish, chased Offerman toward the middle of the infield. Both benches cleared. In the melee that ensued, Nathans was struck in the head by Offerman's bat.

Once order was restored, Offerman was ejected from the game by the umpires. Late that night, Offerman was arrested on two counts of Assault in the Second Degree. As a result of the incident, he was indefinitely suspended by the Executive Director of the League and never played baseball for the Ducks again.

DISCUSSION

A motion for summary judgment must be granted if the pleadings, discovery materials before the court and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

A dispute regarding a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of any material factual issue genuinely in dispute. Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. London Am. Int'l Corp., 664 F.2d 348, 351 (2d Cir.1981).

If a nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of his case with respect to which he has the burden of proof, then summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. If the nonmoving party submits evidence which is “merely colorable,” legally sufficient opposition to the motion for summary judgment is not met. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 264, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party's position is insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for him. See Dawson v. County of Westchester, 373 F.3d 265, 272 (2d Cir.2004).

On summary judgment, the court resolves all ambiguities and draws all permissible factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 218 (2d Cir.2004). If there is any evidence in the record from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the opposing party on the issue on which summary judgment is sought, summary judgment is improper. See Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir.2004).

Respondeat Superior

The Ducks assert that it cannot be held vicariously liable for defendant Offerman's conduct because his conduct was outside the scope and course of his employment with the Ducks and did not further the interests or business of the Ducks. “[U]nder the common-law principle of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for compensatory damages arising out of the tortious conduct of his employee when that conduct occurs during the course of the employee's employment.” Matthiessen v. Vanech, 266 Conn. 822, 839, 836 A.2d 394 (2003). “[T]o hold an employer liable for the intentional torts of his employee, the employee must be acting within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the employer's business.... But it must be the affairs of the principal, and not solely the affairs of the agent, which are being furthered in order for the doctrine to apply.” Cornelius v. Department of Banking, 94 Conn.App. 547, 557, 893 A.2d 472 (2006).

“Ordinarily, it is a question of fact as to whether a wilful tort of the servant has occurred within the scope of the servant's employment and was done to further his master's business. But there are occasional cases where a servant's digression from duty is so clear-cut that the disposition of the case becomes a matter of law.” A–G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 216 Conn. 200, 207, 579 A.2d 69 (1990). Connecticut courts draw a distinction between unauthorized or misguided efforts by employees in furtherance of an employer's business—for which employers may be held liable, and abandonment of an employer's business—for which employers may not be held liable. Mullen. v. Horton, 46 Conn.App. 759, 767, 700 A.2d 1377 (1997).

“In determining whether an employee has acted within the scope of employment, courts look to whether the employee's conduct: (1) occurs primarily within the employer's authorized time and space limits; (2) is of the type that the employee is employed to perform; and (3) is motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.” Harp v. King, 266 Conn. 747, 782–83, 835 A.2d 953 (2003); see alsoRestatement (Second), Agency § 228. Here, there is no dispute that Offerman's conduct occurred within the time and space limits of the employer. Whether his conduct was of the type that the Ducks employed him to perform and was motivated in part by a purpose to serve the Ducks is disputed.

In Mullen v. Horton, the Appellate Court of Connecticut examined the line between mere misguided efforts and abandonment of an employer's business. 46 Conn.App. at 764–771, 700 A.2d 1377.

Here, as in Glucksman [ v. Walters, 38 Conn.App. 140, 659 A.2d 1217 (1995) ] and Pelletier, the trier of fact could reasonably have found that Horton's sexual relations with the plaintiff during their pastoral-psychological counseling sessions, were a “misguided effort” at psychologically and spiritually counseling the plaintiff, rather than an abandonment of the counseling. Just as the YMCA employee's assault on the basketball court in Glucksman, and the employee's assault on the customer who had littered in Pelletier represented extreme and clearly unauthorized methods of maintaining order and thereby furthering their employers' business, Horton's engaging in sexual contact with the plaintiff during counseling sessions also could represent an extreme and clearly unauthorized method of spiritually and emotionally counseling the plaintiff and thereby furthering the church's business.

Mullen, 46 Conn.App. at 767, 700 A.2d 1377. The court distinguished the above cases from Brown v. Housing Authority, 23 Conn.App. 624, 583 A.2d 643 (1990), where a mechanic left his job route, followed the plaintiff's car, and attacked the plaintiff with a hammer, finding that the mechanic “necessarily abandoned his employer'sbusiness to pursue and attack the plaintiff.” Mullen, 46 Conn.App. at 769, 700 A.2d 1377....