Matthews v. FOOD LION, LLC

Citations: 695 S.E.2d 828; 205 N.C. App. 279; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 1151Docket: COA10-73

Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; July 6, 2010; North Carolina; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff Diamond J. Matthews appeals a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Food Lion, LLC. The case arises from an incident on December 31, 2006, where Plaintiff was injured after Defendant's employee, Brigitte Hall, who had clocked out, entered a bathroom briskly and found Plaintiff on the floor. Hall called for help and waited with Plaintiff until emergency services arrived.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 24, 2009, alleging negligence against Hall and claiming Defendant’s liability under respondeat superior. The initial complaint misidentified Hall as "Brittany Hall." After correcting this in an amended complaint, Defendant responded with denials and a motion to dismiss, which was followed by further amendments from Plaintiff.

On November 30, 2009, after discovery, the trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff contended that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding Hall's scope of employment at the time of the incident. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, citing that summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine material facts in dispute and reasonable conclusions point to a lack of negligence by the Defendant. The ruling emphasized that while summary judgment is reserved for rare cases, it is justified when the evidence overwhelmingly supports the defendant's position.

Employers are generally held liable for the torts of their employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior when employees act within the scope of their employment. Liability arises in three scenarios: 1) when the agent's act is expressly authorized by the principal, 2) when the act is within the scope of employment and furthers the principal's business, or 3) when the act is ratified by the principal. In this case, no express authorization or ratification of employee Hall's actions is claimed. 

To deny summary judgment, there must be a genuine dispute regarding whether Hall was acting within her employment scope during the incident, thereby making her negligence attributable to the employer. Past rulings emphasize that an employer is liable for any acts of an employee, whether negligent or malicious, as long as those acts relate to the employee's duties. If an employee engages in personal matters outside their employment scope, the employer is not liable.

For liability to attach under respondeat superior, Hall must have been furthering her employer's business at the incident's time. If she was pursuing a private purpose, the employer cannot be held accountable. Although the plaintiff contends that Hall had a duty to inspect the bathroom even while off-duty, the court finds insufficient evidence to establish that the defendant is liable under respondeat superior for actions taken by an off-duty employee.

Defendant is not liable for the actions of its employee, Hall, as she had clocked out and was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the incident. Although Hall was present on the premises, evidence does not support that she was furthering the employer's interests during the occurrence. The case of Estes is distinguished; there, the employee was on duty and followed employer directives, whereas Hall was off duty and not required to be on-site. Plaintiff's reference to Hunt v. State is deemed inapplicable, as it pertains to Workers' Compensation rather than respondeat superior claims against an employer by a third party. North Carolina case law indicates that employers are not liable if employees are not acting for the company's benefit at the time of an accident. Thus, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant is affirmed, with Judges GEER and JACKSON concurring.