Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · Torts
TortsRespondeat superiorScope of employmentVicarious liabilitytortsvicarious liabilityrespondeat superiorscope of employment
Facts
Waldron was a part-time employee of Raybele Tavern and, according to the court, had been instructed by his employer to socialize with customers. During one such period, he attempted to demonstrate self-defense with a penknife by drawing it from his pocket fully opened. In the course of that display, the blade struck the plaintiff's eye and seriously injured him. The court found no evidence that playing with knives was part of Waldron's duties as a sandwich maker or otherwise within the scope of his employment.
Issue
Was there sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Waldron's knife display, which injured the plaintiff, occurred within the scope of his employment so as to make Raybele Tavern vicariously liable under respondeat superior?
Rule
An act is within the scope of a servant's employment when it is necessary to accomplish the purpose of the employment and intended for that purpose. An employee acts within the scope of employment when he is doing something in furtherance of the duties he owes his employer and when the employer is or could be exercising some direct or indirect control over the activity; the act may not be outside the general scope of employment or done with a purpose foreign to the employer's interests.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a neighborhood cafe in Buffalo, Mia Torres worked the sandwich counter for Lakefront Corner Eats. Her manager often told staff to "be friendly and chat with regulars." While joking with customers, Mia picked up two metal skewers and pretended to fence with them, accidentally stabbing a patron's hand.
Is Lakefront Corner Eats most likely vicariously liable for Mia's conduct?
Explanation. The majority rule requires that the employee's act be in furtherance of duties owed to the employer and subject to actual or potential employer control; it may not be outside the general scope of employment or done for a purpose foreign to the employer's interests. A broad instruction to socialize or be friendly does not convert hazardous horseplay with sharp objects into conduct necessary to accomplish the purpose of the employment. On these facts, the dangerous joking is outside the general scope of sandwich-counter work and not tied to the employer's business.