Canney v. Strathglass Holdings, LLC

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2017 · Corporations

159 A.3d 330 (2017)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationsscope of employmentrespondeat superioron-call employeesummary judgmentdirect liabilitynegligenceagency

Facts

Strathglass owned rental units and hired tenant Eric Burns to provide on-call maintenance and property-management services, including showing apartments, collecting rent, making repairs, and responding to tenant needs. Burns lived in one unit next to Canney and was instructed that tenants could contact him at his home or by phone. Nicholai entered Burns's fenced private backyard for recreational swimming at the invitation of Burns's girlfriend's daughter, and Burns's dog bit him there while Burns had been inside fixing furniture. Evans, Strathglass's sole member, knew Burns had a dog but had no reason to believe the dog was dangerous.

Issue

Whether Strathglass could be held vicariously liable because Burns was acting within the scope of his employment when his dog bit Nicholai, and whether Strathglass could be held directly liable in negligence on the summary judgment record. Also, whether scope of employment could be decided as a matter of law on these undisputed facts.

Rule

When material facts are undisputed, whether an employee acted within the scope of employment may be decided as a question of law. Under Restatement (Third) of Agency section 7.07(2), an employee acts within the scope of employment when performing work assigned by the employer or engaging in conduct subject to the employer's control; acts occurring in an independent course of conduct not intended to serve any purpose of the employer are outside the scope. A plaintiff resisting summary judgment on direct negligence must allege and support a prima facie negligence claim consisting of duty, breach, and proximate causation.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview Terrace LLC owns apartments in Toledo, Ohio, and pays tenant-manager Owen Price to handle maintenance requests, show units, and collect rent. Tenants are told they may knock on Owen's door because he is on call. During a Saturday barbecue in Owen's private fenced deck area, Owen's dog bites a guest who came only for the cookout.

If the guest sues Lakeview Terrace LLC on a respondeat superior theory, what is the strongest argument for summary judgment in the LLC's favor?

Explanation. The governing rule is that an employee acts within the scope of employment only when performing assigned work or engaging in conduct subject to the employer's control; conduct in an independent course not intended to serve the employer is outside the scope. The majority also emphasized that merely being on call at home does not, without more, make all acts at home within the scope. Here, the social barbecue in a private fenced area and the guest's recreational presence point away from any employer-related purpose.