149 A.3d 741
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Off-duty Prince George’s County Officer Dominique Richardson, on light-duty (restricted from extra-duty work), worked as paid security at a fraternity Halloween party without authorization; he wore badge/gear and recruited other officers.
- Crowd control became necessary when the venue exceeded capacity; Richardson positioned at entrance, used cruiser lights/sirens, and acted to control surging patrons.
- Steven Morales, a ticket-holder, was pushed in the crowd, asked Richardson for help, and an altercation ensued in which Richardson punched and restrained Morales; Morales suffered serious dental and emotional injuries.
- Richardson completed a use-of-force report and criminal charges against Morales were later filed and nol prossed; Richardson was acquitted on criminal charges and resigned from PGPD.
- Morales sued Richardson and Prince George’s County alleging battery/excessive force and sought vicarious liability against the County; after remand from federal court, a jury found Richardson used excessive force within the scope of employment and awarded damages against both defendants.
- The County appealed, arguing as a matter of law Richardson’s light-duty status and unauthorized extra-duty employment placed his actions outside the scope of PGPD employment and the trial court erred in certain jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richardson acted within the scope of PG County employment when he used force on Morales | Morales: Richardson was identifiable as a PGPD officer, used police training/techniques, undertook crowd control in a public County location, and thus acted (at least in part) to serve the County | County: Richardson was on light duty and prohibited from extra-duty work; he was working solely for the fraternity and acted for private benefit, so as a matter of law his actions were outside scope | Court: Denied County’s motions; evidence was sufficient to generate a jury question and support a verdict that Richardson acted within scope despite policy violation |
| Whether violation of PGPD extra-duty/light-duty policy prevents scope finding as a matter of law | Morales: Policy violation is relevant but not dispositive; officers may take police action when circumstances warrant (24/7 policy) | County: Policy forbids light-duty officers from extra-duty work; unauthorized status makes actions unforeseeable and outside scope | Court: Policy violation is a jury factor but not dispositive; 24/7 County code allows officers to take police action when warranted; denial affirmed |
| Whether agency/apparent authority instructions were applicable | Morales: Jury should consider apparent authority, employer ratification, and whether officer’s appearance/acts led plaintiffs to rely on his status | County: No act by County led Morales to believe Richardson acted for County; instructions on apparent/actual authority and economic benefit were inapplicable | Court: Instructions were proper—evidence supported apparent authority and possible ratification; economic-benefit instruction relevant to juror analysis |
| Whether 24/7-policy instruction (officers always on duty for police action) was proper | Morales: Instruction correctly states local law and is relevant to scope analysis | County: Light-duty restriction makes instruction inapplicable and misleading | Court: Instruction correctly stated County law and was appropriate given the evidence; trial court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Prince George’s County, 211 Md. App. 548 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013) (scope-of-employment factors and jury question framework for off-duty officer conduct)
- Sawyer v. Humphries, 322 Md. 247 (Md. 1991) (articulating multi-factor test for whether employee acts within scope of employment)
- Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690 (Md. 2001) (discussing dual-employment doctrine for off-duty officers and applicability of agency principles)
- Cox v. Prince George’s County, 296 Md. 162 (Md. 1983) (scope-of-employment is ordinarily a jury question)
- French v. Hines, 182 Md. App. 201 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008) (excessive force by on-duty officers can create scope/jury issues)
- Wolfe v. Anne Arundel County, 374 Md. 20 (Md. 2003) (example where on-duty officer’s conduct—rape—was held outside scope as a matter of law)
- Rusnack v. Giant Foods, 26 Md. App. 250 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975) (off-duty private security context where employee’s assault was personal and outside employer’s scope)