Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles

Supreme Court of California · Torts

TortsRespondeat superiorVicarious liabilityScope of employmentPolice misconductrespondeat superiorscope of employmentpublic employer liability

Facts

While on duty at about 2:30 a.m., Sergeant Schroyer stopped plaintiff for erratic driving, wearing his uniform, badge, and gun and driving a marked police car. After plaintiff performed poorly on a field sobriety test and pleaded not to be taken to jail, Schroyer ordered her into the front seat of his police car and drove her to her home. Inside the house he demanded "payment" for taking her home, grabbed her when she tried to flee, threatened to take her to jail, and raped her. Plaintiff then brought a civil action against Schroyer and the City, claiming the City was vicariously liable for his conduct.

Issue

Can a public entity be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior when an on-duty police officer, by misusing his official authority over a person he has detained, rapes that person? More specifically, was Schroyer's conduct so outside the scope of employment that the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law?

Rule

Under Government Code section 815.2 and general respondeat superior principles, a public employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee's tort committed within the scope of employment. An employee's conduct is within the scope if, in the context of the enterprise, the risk is not so unusual or startling that it would be unfair to allocate the loss to the employer, and the inquiry asks whether the risk is typical of or broadly incidental to the enterprise. When an on-duty police officer misuses official authority to commit a sexual assault on a detained person, the public employer can be held vicariously liable, with scope of employment ordinarily remaining a question for the jury.

🔒

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.

At 1:00 a.m. in Sacramento, Officer Nolan Pierce, on patrol in uniform and driving a marked cruiser, stopped Elena Ruiz for weaving. After ordering her into the front seat and telling dispatch he was handling a DUI investigation, he drove her to a dark parking lot and told her he would arrest her unless she submitted to sexual touching.

In Elena's suit against the city under respondeat superior, which is the strongest argument for allowing the claim to go to the jury?

Explanation. The majority held that a public employer may be vicariously liable when an on-duty officer misuses official authority over a detained person to commit a sexual assault. The proper inquiry is whether, in the context of the enterprise, the risk is not so unusual or startling that it would be unfair to allocate the loss to the employer, and whether the misconduct occurred in the course of a series of authorized acts. There is no automatic liability, no requirement that the assault be authorized, and no requirement that the act benefit the employer. (Derived from Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (n.d.).)