Roth v. First National State Bank of New Jersey

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division · 1979 · Torts

TortsRespondeat superiorVoluntarily assumed dutyscope of employmentrespondeat superiorbank confidentialityemployee criminal actvoluntary undertaking

Facts

Plaintiff regularly withdrew large sums of cash each morning from defendant bank for use in his check-cashing business. A bank teller, Connie Walker, told her boyfriend about plaintiff's routine, his appearance, and his car, and that information was passed to the robbers who robbed plaintiff just after he left the bank with $72,000 in cash. Walker was not shown to have handled plaintiff's withdrawal transactions, and her knowledge appeared to come from observation. Although a former guard had previously escorted plaintiff to his car, that guard had been absent for weeks or longer, the replacement guard did not escort him, plaintiff never requested such protection or complained, and plaintiff also had a longstanding police escort arrangement but did not wait for the officer on the day of the robbery.

Issue

Was the bank liable for plaintiff's robbery loss because its teller breached a duty of confidentiality within the scope of her employment, or because the bank had voluntarily assumed and then breached a duty to escort plaintiff safely to his car?

Rule

An employer is vicariously liable only for employee conduct within the scope of employment, meaning conduct of the kind the employee is employed to perform, occurring substantially within authorized time and space limits, and actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer; conduct is outside the scope if it is different in kind from authorized conduct, too far removed in time or space, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the employer. Even criminal or tortious acts may fall within the scope only when done for the master's purposes or when reasonably expectable. A voluntarily assumed duty of protection may cease when the undertaking has been abandoned and the plaintiff knows the protection is no longer being provided.

🔒

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.

In Cleveland, Nora Kim worked as a customer-service representative for Lakeside Trust Bank. Angry at a regular depositor who had insulted her brother, she texted her cousin during her lunch break that the depositor would be leaving soon with a large cash withdrawal; the cousin relayed the tip to robbers, who attacked the depositor outside the bank.

Is the bank most likely vicariously liable for Nora's disclosure?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, an employer is vicariously liable only for employee conduct within the scope of employment: conduct of the kind the employee is employed to perform, occurring substantially within authorized time and space limits, and actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer. Here Nora's tip was a personal, criminal act aimed at private revenge, not service of the bank. The opinion also rejects the idea that causation or the mere existence of a confidentiality duty makes the employer automatically liable. (Derived from Roth v. First National State Bank of New Jersey (n.d.).)