From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kirkman v. Astoria General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 9, 1994
204 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Summary

finding no liability where neither the defendant nor its independent contractor had any "knowledge of the employee's propensity for the sort of behavior which caused the injured party's harm"

Summary of this case from Wahlstrom v. Metro-North Commuter R. Co.

Opinion

May 9, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).


Ordered that the order, as amended, is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motions for summary judgment are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought this action to recover for personal injuries the minor plaintiff suffered, and for the mother's loss of companionship, after the minor plaintiff was raped by a security guard, employed by the Burns International Security Services, on duty at Astoria General Hospital where the minor plaintiff had been visiting a patient.

A possessor of realty, either as an owner or as a tenant, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain the property in a safe condition, including the undertaking of minimal precautions to protect members of the public from the reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third persons (see, Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519; see also, Provenzano v. Roslyn Gardens Tenants Corp., 190 A.D.2d 718, 720). There is no evidence in the record that Astoria General Hospital (hereinafter the hospital) had any knowledge of, or contact with, the Burns International Security Services (hereinafter Burns) employee that would have made the employee's criminal act foreseeable to the hospital.

Further, since the service contract between Burns and the hospital clearly indicated that the security personnel working at the hospital were employed by, and under the direct supervision of, Burns, the hospital cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of the Burns employee as a matter of law. Accordingly, we conclude that the Supreme Court incorrectly denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment.

The Supreme Court should also have granted Burns's motion for summary judgment. An employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employee, even when the employee's actions are intentional, if the actions were done while the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment (see, Riviello v. Waldron, 47 N.Y.2d 297, 302). However, there is no vicarious liability on the part of the employer for torts committed by the employee solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employers' business (see, Nicollette T. v. Hospital for Joint Diseases/Orthopaedic Inst., 198 A.D.2d 54; see also, Heindel v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 138 A.D.2d 787, 788; Horowitz v Sears, Roebuck Co., 137 A.D.2d 492). In the instant case, the employee's criminal conduct was not incidental to the furtherance of Burns's business. The acts were committed for purely personal motives, and were clearly a departure from any normal security personnel duties.

The plaintiffs also claimed that Burns had negligently hired, and then failed to properly supervise the employee. While an employer may be required to answer in damages for the tort of an employee against a third party when the employer has either hired or retained the employee with knowledge of the employee's propensity for the sort of behavior which caused the injured party's harm (see, Detone v. Bullit Courier Serv., 140 A.D.2d 278, 279), there is no evidence here that Burns had any such knowledge. Burns conducted a routine, but thorough, pre-employment check into the employee's background, and obtained confirmation from the Department of State, License Division, that the employee had no prior criminal history. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim of negligent supervision. Accordingly, we conclude that the Supreme Court incorrectly denied Burns's motion for summary judgment.

In accordance with our decision herein, the complaint is dismissed as against both defendants. Balletta, J.P., Copertino, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kirkman v. Astoria General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 9, 1994
204 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

finding no liability where neither the defendant nor its independent contractor had any "knowledge of the employee's propensity for the sort of behavior which caused the injured party's harm"

Summary of this case from Wahlstrom v. Metro-North Commuter R. Co.

dismissing complaint alleging employer liability for rape of child patient by hospital security guard

Summary of this case from Jane Doe v. HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Fahd Alsaud

In Kirkman v. Astoria Gen. Hosp. (204 A.D.2d 401, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 811, rearg denied 85 N.Y.2d 858), a security guard, employed by an independent agency, raped a young woman visiting a patient, who then sued the hospital and the security service that employed the rapist.

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. United Transp
Case details for

Kirkman v. Astoria General Hospital

Case Details

Full title:KIMBERLY KIRKMAN, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, RAE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 9, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
611 N.Y.S.2d 615

Citing Cases

Martinez v. Amanecer Chapin Corporation

Once this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to…

Martinez v. Amanecer Chapin Corp.

Once this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summaryjudgment to…