« Ind. Decisions - "Jury rejects pollution suit against New Albany power plant" | Main | Environment - "Judge sets June 16 prehearing on BP air permit appeals" »
Friday, May 23, 2008
Ind. Decisions - "Liability in office battery argued" before Supreme Court
Niki Kelly reports today on yesterday's oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Debra Barnett v. Camille Clark - see ILB entries from earlier this week here and here. Some quotes:
The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on whether former Pleasant Township Trustee Camelia Clark can be held legally responsible for the sexual battery committed by one of her employees – and husband – Donald Clark.Donald Clark pleaded guilty in 2005 to sexual battery and battery involving two women who came to the trustee’s office seeking temporary financial assistance. * * *
[T]he trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Camelia Clark.
The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned the ruling in December 2007, finding that an employer can be liable for the criminal acts of an employee if the employee’s actions were at least for a time authorized.
The Indiana Supreme Court vacated that decision and listened to lawyers from both sides Thursday, where the arguments centered on a legal doctrine used in the case called “respondeat superior.” This generally means an exception to liability where none would usually exist.
Christopher Wheeler argued on behalf of the victim that Donald Clark was doing authorized acts during part of the time he was with Barnett – such as instructing her on filing, reviewing her work and seeking her signature on paperwork.
“This case is about whether or not my client should have the opportunity to bring her case to a jury,” he said.
But Robert Keen Jr., attorney for Camelia Clark, said the authorized acts aren’t closely related enough to the battery to allow them to use the narrow exception.
For instance, he said a person injured by a bouncer – who is authorized to have physical contact with patrons – could sue the employer if injured.
Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. appeared bothered by the facts of the case.
“What concerns me most about this case is the vulnerability of an individual who is so down and out on her luck that she is seeking public assistance, … and a public employee who takes advantage of that situation,” he said.
He further said he thinks employers should be required to guard against that.
Keen agreed and noted that Barnett could have sued for negligent supervision or negligent hiring but did not.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 23, 2008 09:46 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions