Doe v. State
2013 Del. LEXIS 469
| Del. | 2013Background
- Doe was stopped for shoplifting at JC Penney in Christiana Mall and later escorted by Delaware State Police to court.
- Officer Joshua Giddings transported Doe, driving to multiple locations in the mall parking lot.
- At a third location, Giddings allegedly assaulted Doe by placing her hands on his genitals; later he coerced her to perform oral sex in the front seat of the police car.
- Giddings allegedly threatened to arrest Doe and keep her in jail unless she complied, and he then drove her home after the incident.
- Doe reported the incident; Giddings was arrested for sexual misconduct, bribery and official misconduct and later killed himself.
- Doe sued the State of Delaware and Giddings’ estate, asserting vicarious liability under agency and respondeat superior; the Superior Court granted summary judgment that Giddings was acting outside the scope of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Giddings acted within the scope of employment when committing the assault | Doe argues the assault occurred during transport/arrest, within duties of policing. | State contends the sexual assault is not within the scope of employment as a criminal act outside job duties. | Jury must decide; scope is fact-specific and not automatic. |
| Whether Restatement (Second) of Agency factors support scope for liability | Doe contends factors show the act occurred within the course of employment. | State argues factors do not automatically render the act within scope and require jury evaluation. | Evidence suggests first two factors align with employment; third and fourth require fact-finding by jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Draper v. Olivere Paving & Constr. Co., 181 A.2d 565 (Del. 1962) (scope of employment questions for jury when whether assault occurred during duty is close)
- Simmons v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 340 Mo. 1118 (Mo. 1937) (illustrates close questions about acts serving employer interests)
- Martin v. Cavalier Hotel Corp., 48 F.3d 1343 (4th Cir. 1995) (quotes concern on whether conduct serves employer interests)
- Red Elk v. United States, 62 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir. 1995) (foreseeability of wrongful acts in scope analysis)
- Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem’l Hosp., 12 Cal.4th 291 (Cal. 1995) (foreseeability and scope considerations in agency invasion)