Hudson v. Flores, 2016 Ohio 253

Background

On July 27, 2013 Jeffrey Hudson, a guest at the Imperial Inn, accused Debra Mauri (Flores’s girlfriend and a resident) of stealing $20; Hudson confronted hotel employee Steven Flores while Flores was cleaning a room and Flores pushed him. Hudson fell, Flores grabbed Hudson’s arm to help him up, and Hudson’s arm was later determined to be broken.
Hudson sued Flores and the Inn alleging negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior, and negligent hiring; insurer Acuity intervened seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify.
The Inn and Acuity moved for summary judgment arguing Flores acted outside the scope of employment and thus the Inn was not vicariously liable and Acuity had no duty under the policy.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the Inn and Acuity, concluding Flores’s conduct was an intentional tort (battery) and not calculated to facilitate the Inn’s business; negligent hiring claims were dismissed for failure to show proximate causation.
Hudson appealed, challenging (1) characterization of Flores’s conduct as an intentional tort, (2) the court’s finding Flores acted outside the scope of employment, and (3) that the Inn is not liable under respondeat superior. The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Flores’s conduct a battery (intentional tort) or negligence?	Hudson maintained the conduct was negligent, not an intentional tort.	Inn and Acuity argued Flores’s push/handling was intentional conduct (battery).	Court held Flores’s conduct constituted an intentional tort (battery).
Was Flores acting within the scope of employment when he pushed and helped Hudson?	Hudson argued the interaction occurred while Flores was on duty cleaning and he had responsibility for guest safety, so acts were within scope.	Inn argued Flores had stopped work, the dispute was personal, and acts did not further Inn’s business.	Court held Flores acted outside the scope of employment; incident was personal and not to promote business.
Can the Inn be liable under respondeat superior for an employee’s intentional tort?	Hudson argued the Inn could be vicariously liable because the event occurred on Inn property and Flores had duties involving guest contacts/safety.	Inn argued intentional torts are actionable under respondeat superior only if calculated to facilitate/promote employer’s business (or ratified); neither applied.	Court held no respondeat superior liability because act was not calculated to facilitate/promote the Inn’s business and there was no ratification or benefit to the Inn.
Does insurer Acuity owe duty to defend/indemnify the Inn for Flores’s conduct?	Hudson implicitly argued coverage might apply if conduct was within scope.	Acuity argued policy covered employees only for acts within scope; Flores’s acts were outside scope so no coverage.	Court held Acuity had no duty because Flores was not an insured under the policy for these acts.

Key Cases Cited

Hillyer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 131 Ohio App.3d 172 (8th Dist. 1999) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
Diamond Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Dayton Heidelberg Distrib. Co., 148 Ohio App.3d 596 (3d Dist. 2002) (appellate courts may affirm on different reasons)
State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1994) (appellate affirmance doctrine)
Murphy v. City of Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (Ohio 1992) (summary judgment doubts resolved for nonmoving party)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
Cooke v. Montgomery Cty., 158 Ohio App.3d 139 (2d Dist. 2004) (scope-of-employment elements for respondeat superior)
Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1991) (employer liability for intentional torts only if acts calculated to facilitate/promote business)
Vrabel v. Acri, 156 Ohio St. 467 (Ohio 1952) (employee assault outside scope; no employer liability)
Morr v. Crouch, 19 Ohio St.2d 24 (Ohio 1969) (ratification requires employer knowledge of facts)