Is an Oregon Company Liable for an Employee’s Intentional Infliction of Injuries?

Oregon employers are often held “vicariously” liable for the negligent acts of their employees. For example, if a store hires a driver to make deliveries, and in the course of performing that work the driver runs a red light and hits another car, the victims in the other car can file a personal injury lawsuit against the employer. In this context, the employer is vicariously liable for a negligent act committed by an employee within the scope of their employment.

Shipt Faces Negligence Claim Following Delivery Driver’s Assault of Customer

But what about intentional injuries caused by an employee? Obviously, companies do not typically require their employees to commit criminal acts as part of their job description. But under Oregon law, an employer can still be held responsible when an employee intentionally injures someone if that action was a “direct outgrowth” of acts within the scope of employment.

A recent decision from a federal judge in Oregon, Burrell v. Carter, helps to illustrate what this all means in practice. In this case, the plaintiff ordered a new phone case from a local Best Buy. He chose to have the phone case delivered via Shipt, a third-party delivery service. Shipt, in turn, employed a driver named Carter to make the actual delivery.

During the drive to the plaintiff’s house, an apparent “road rage” incident ensued between Carter and the plaintiff’s son-in-law, who was driving his truck near the property. A passenger in Carter’s vehicle then allegedly exited the vehicle and brandished a knife. The son-in-law told Carter to leave the property and went into the house to warn the plaintiff. Carter briefly left but then re-entered the plaintiff’s driveway. Carter and one of his passengers then again displayed knives. Carter then got back into his car and, without closing his door, put the vehicle in reverse, striking the plaintiff and dragging him about 30 feet on the ground.

The plaintiff subsequently sued Carter as well as Shipt. He alleged the latter was vicariously liable under Oregon law for Carter’s intentional assault. Shipt argued Carter’s actions were not a “direct outgrowth” of his work for the company. The judge agreed and dismissed that part of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The court explained that other than bringing the plaintiff and Carter together at his house on the day in question, there was no connection between what Carter–and his passengers–did and his “authorized duties.”

That said, the judge declined to dismiss a separate claim that the plaintiff brought against Shipt for its alleged negligence in failing to properly screen, train, and supervise Carter in his role as a delivery driver. The judge said the plaintiff’s allegations could “give rise to an inference of a foreseeable risk of harm” that Carter might injure someone. This must still be proven at trial, but the judge said the case against Shipt on this issue could proceed to the discovery stage.

Contact a Portland Personal Injury Attorney

If you have been injured through the deliberate act of another person, you have the ability to demand financial compensation for your losses. Our Portland personal injury lawyers can help. Contact Rosenbaum Law Group, PC, today at 503-288-8000 to schedule a free consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1949899871873981444