Davis v. Devereux Foundation
209 N.J. 269
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Davis, a nonverbal resident with autism and developmental disabilities, was scalded by McClain, a Devereux residential counselor, in 2004.
- Devereux, a nonprofit, underwent a Charitable Immunity Act (CIA) shield, barring negligence recovery against it.
- Plaintiff, Davis’s mother and guardian ad litem, sought to impose a non-delegable duty on Devereux to prevent the intentional acts of its employees.
- McClain admitted to premeditatedly injuring Davis; she was convicted and imprisoned for the assault and later pled guilty to related crimes.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Devereux on negligence claims; Appellate Division split on whether McClain’s act was within scope of employment.
- The Court held that no non-delegable duty exists and that McClain’s act was not within the scope of employment, affirming summary judgment for Devereux.
- The decision affirms a duty of reasonable care in in loco parentis relationships but rejects expanding to an absolute, non-delegable duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non-delegable duty applies | Davis’s guardian seeks non-delegable protection against employee abuse. | Non-delegable duty expands liability beyond traditional respondeat superior and risks charitable operations. | No non-delegable duty recognized. |
| Whether McClain’s assault was within the scope of employment | McClain acted in part to serve Devereux; thus within scope. | The act was premeditated and outside the scope of employment. | McClain's assault was outside the scope of employment as a matter of law. |
| Whether the CIA bars the negligence claims | CIA does not bar claims arising from negligent care and supervision. | CIA immunities extinguish negligence claims against Devereux. | CIA immunities limit but do not on their own resolve the scope-of-employment issue; this ruling focused on non-delegable duty and scope. |
| Whether the appellate decision to deny summary judgment on scope was correct | A reasonable jury could find McClain acted to serve her employer. | No rational factfinder could find the act served Devereux. | Affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on scope; no jury could find within scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frugis v. Bracigliano, 177 N.J. 250 (N.J. 2003) (in loco parentis duty rooted in reasonable care, not absolute liability)
- Hardwicke v. American Boychoir School, 188 N.J. 69 (N.J. 2006) (context of CSAA; reaffirmed reasonable care, not non-delegable duty)
- Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587 (N.J. 1993) (rejects strict liability for employment discrimination; supports negligent supervision concept)
- Abbmont v. Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Educ., 138 N.J. 405 (N.J. 1994) (agency-based negligence rather than non-delegable duty for certain claims)
- Gibson v. Kennedy, 23 N.J. 150 (N.J. 1957) (scope of employment test: act within duties may be imputed to employer)
- Nelson v. American-West African Line, Inc., 86 F.2d 730 (2d Cir.1936) (mixed motives; employee action may be within scope if to serve master's business)
- Majestic Realty Assocs., Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co., 30 N.J. 425 (N.J. 1959) (non-delegable duty framework; absolute duty is for the master to ensure protection)
- Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Leontarakis, 387 N.J. Super. 583 (App. Div. 2006) (non-delegable duty contexts; never intended to override traditional negligence)
- Goldberg v. Housing Authority of Newark, 38 N.J. 578 (N.J. 1962) (Hopkins framework for duty based on relationship, risk, ability to control, public policy)
- Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (N.J. 1993) (four Hopkins factors guiding duty analysis)
- J.H. v. Mercer County Youth Detention Center, 396 N.J. Super. 1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007) (CSAA context; cautions about misapplying non-delegable duty)