Facts
The city or the defendant employed Leigh B Schroyer of who by October 3, 1981, was a field supervisor. The duties he was assigned was to train and supervise the police offers that patrol the streets.
On the same day, Mary M, the plaintiff at around 2.30 am was driving alone to home and was stopped by Leigh B Schroyer, the police officer. The police officer asked for her driving license that she handed over, but failed in field sobriety test when asked to perform it to show whether the plaintiff is as drunk. Schroyer had an opinion that Mary could not safely drive her car under the influence of alcohol. The plaintiff started crying and pleading with the officer not to arrest her or take her to jail. The officer drove her home not handcuffed instead of arresting her for drunk driving.
People Also Read
The plaintiff’s house asking for “payment” for safely taking her home and not to jail. While the plaintiff tried to run away, the officer grabbed her, threw her on the couch, and threatened to take her to jail, after which he raped her
In the car, the officer sent a radio message to the operator that he was from a “lunch break.” He also ignored the question about his earlier report that he was conducting some investigation and returned to the station
Because of the incident, the plaintiff filed criminal charges against the officer, and he was convicted of rape by the jury (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (2)). He was sentenced to state prison by the trial court
A civil lawsuit was also brought against the city and sergeant Schroyer by the plaintiff, for the damages that arose out of the rape. The complaint of the plaintiff originally stated that the negligence of employing Schroyer by the city makes them liable. Also that as an employer of Schroyer, under the respondent superior doctrine, the city was vicariously liable. However, during the trial, the plaintiff only relied on the respondent’s superior theory. The jury’s verdict was in favor of the plaintiff and found out that “during the time the events occurred, Schroyer was acting within his employment scope with the Police Department of Los Angeles. The general damages assessed by the jury against the city was $150,000.
The court of appeal that was divided reversed the verdict because the majority held that Schroyer, as a matter of law, was not acting within his employment scope when raped the complainant.
Issues
During the appeal, City, the defendant contended that Schroyer raping of Mary, as a matter of law, was not within his employment scope, hence negating respondent superior doctrines applicability upon which vicarious liability of the city was based. Moreover, the defendant contended that the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff to claim damages that arose from the schroyers criminal investigation and prosecution.
Rules
The general principles that underlie an employer’s vicarious liability include the respondent superior doctrine under which an employer be liable for the committed torts by an employee with the employment scope. For the application of the respondent superior doctrine, the plaintiff must prove that the tortious conduct of the employee was committed with the employment scope.
Application
From the case, the trial court directed the jury that when a police officer legally causes injury when exercising his authority, the employer may be liable regardless of the knowledge or rules of the employer concerning the wrongful act, and also notwithstanding whether the employee or the employer benefited from the act. Under the invited error doctrine, when a party induces the commission of error, on appeal it may not claim that the judgment should be reversed as a result of the error. The judges found out that the case was decided erroneously, and as a matter of law, the presented evidence showed that Schroyer acted outside his employment scope when raping the plaintiff.
Conclusion
The police officers are entrusted with law enforcement and ensuring the property and lives of citizens are safe. The officers act within the States authority when carrying these responsibilities. However, then police officers misuse these powers to assault sexually, the employer must be held liable for the actions. The court of appeal judgment is reversed.
References
Mann, R. A., Roberts, B. S., & Smith, L. Y. (2000). Smith and Roberson’s business law. Australia: West Legal Studies in Business. pp. 366-387.
The case is talking about the topic of relationship and agent (chapter 19) and is found in pages on page 366- 387
With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.
