In order for an employer to be held vicariously liable for an employee’s violent actions towards third-parties, those actions must be foreseeable.  If the employees violent actions are unforeseeable, then the employer’s duty to protect is not triggered, and the employer can not be held liable for negligence.

In Randolph v. Rite Aid of N.Y., Inc., plaintiff, alleged that after being caught shoplifting at one of defendant’s stores in Manhattan, he was assaulted by a security guard.  Plaintiff asserted a cause of action against Rite Aid that its employees were directly negligent in failing to protect him from the security guard, who was armed with a baseball bat, and that defendant is vicariously liable for its employees’ negligence.  The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court’s ruling, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and held that there was no indication that the alleged assault by the security guard, who had no history of violence, was foreseeable. Accordingly, the duty to protect was not triggered. Absent an opportunity and duty to protect, there can be no liability for negligence.

Thanks to Johan Obregon for his contribution.

For more information, please contact Denise Fontana Ricci at .