 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Mesabi Regional Medical Center8/17/1999
After an adverse jury verdict, appellants Roseann Williams and Lora Anderson challenge: (1) the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment on their vicarious liability, negligent supervision, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims; (2) several evidentiary rulings; (3) certain jury instructions; and (4) the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellants Roseann Williams and Lora Anderson were employed as nurses at Mesabi Regional Medical Center (Mesabi) at all times relevant to this litigation. In 1994 and 1995, John Parson, another nurse at Mesabi, inappropriately touched Anderson. On August 14, 1995, Parson inappropriately touched Williams. Shortly after this incident took place Williams reported the incident to her supervisor, Sue Jamar. Anderson, along with several other women, then came forward with stories relating to Parson's inappropriate behavior at the hospital.
Upon learning of Parson's inappropriate conduct, Mesabi placed Parson on unpaid leave. On August 24, 1995, Parson resigned his employment with the hospital. Appellants brought suit against Parson and Mesabi. Prior to trial, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Mesabi. This appeal follows a jury trial in which the jury found that Mesabi was not negligent and appellants did not sustain any damages.
DECISION
I.
On appeal from a grant of summary judgment appellate courts review the record to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the [district] court erred in its application of the law. Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897, 901 (Minn. 1998).
This court looks upon the evidence "in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted." Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993) (citation omitted).
A.
Appellants contend the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on appellants' assault and battery claims against Mesabi and by dismissing appellants' negligent supervision claim before submitting the case to the jury. Mesabi's liability for these claims, if any, is of a vicarious nature. Bruchas v. Preventative Care, Inc., 553 N.W.2d 440, 443 (Minn. App. 1996). But " or respondeat superior to lie * * * the actor must be within the scope of the employment by the employer." Leaon v. Washington County, 397 N.W.2d 867, 874 (Minn. 1986).
In Minnesota, liability is imposed on the employer when it is established that the employee's acts were motivated by a desire to further the employer's business. Lange v. National Biscuit Co., 297 Minn. 399, 401, 211 N.W.2d 783, 784 (Minn. 1973). An employer is liable for an assault perpetrated by its employee when the attack "is related to the duties of the employee and the assault occurs within work-related limits of time and place." Id. at 404, 211 N.W.2d at 786.
Here, Parson's assaults occurred at work, but Parson did not inappropriately touch appellants in an attempt to help them lift patients or perform some other hospital service. Instead, the record supports the Conclusion that Parson strayed from his hospital duties in order to further his own desires and Parson did not use his position as a nurse to further his own objectives in the sense discussed by the court in Marston v. Minneapolis Clinic of Psychiatry & Neurology, Ltd., 329 N.W.2d 306, 310-11 (Minn. 1982) (employer may be liable where psychiatrist used his position as a psychiatrist to manipulate patients into sexual relations). Cf. P.L. v. Aubert, 545 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Minn. 1996) (no vicarious liability for school district where teacher ha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|