In a personal injury case stemming from an altercation between the plaintiff and a security guard employed by a diner, the plaintiff alleged that he was battered by the guard, BV, after attempting to leave the diner to withdraw cash for his meal. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him damages totaling $646,425, including compensation for past and future pain and suffering and medical expenses.
The defendants, including the diner and its corporate owners, moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that V’s actions were outside the scope of his employment and that the damages awarded were excessive. The Kings County Supreme Court denied their motion, prompting an appeal. The Appellate Division, Second Department, determined that the trial court erred by failing to submit to the jury the question of whether V was acting within the scope of his employment when he attacked the plaintiff. Since an employer can only be held vicariously liable for an employee’s actions if those actions were performed in furtherance of the employer’s business, this omission was deemed a significant procedural error.
As a result, the AD2 sent the case back for a new trial on the issue of liability, ensuring that the jury properly considers whether V's conduct was within the scope of his employment. However, the court upheld the damages awarded, finding them reasonable based on comparable cases.
This decision underscores the importance of properly framing jury interrogatories in cases involving employer liability and highlights the evolving standards for assessing damages in personal injury claims.
Clearly, breakfast shouldn't come with a side of battery.
# # #
DECISION