Smith v. Ripley, 446 F.Supp.3d 683

In 2017 the State of Montana hired Chase Ripley as a Child Protection Specialist and assigned him to Lauren Smith's child-protection case after removing her children and imposing a state treatment plan.
While on a home visit to collect case paperwork, Ripley raped Smith; he later pleaded guilty to Official Misconduct and Negligent Endangerment.
Smith sued Ripley and the State in state court on federal §1983 and multiple state-law theories, including claims premised on vicarious liability (respondeat superior) and nondelegable duty; the State removed the case to federal court.
The State moved to dismiss all claims against it that rely on vicarious liability (Counts II, IV, V, and the vicarious portion of Count III).
The Court held Ripley acted outside the scope of employment (respondeat superior inapplicable) but concluded the State owed Smith a nondelegable duty of reasonable care under Restatement (Second) of Agency §214 and Montana law, so vicarious liability survives.
The Court rejected the State's sovereign-immunity argument and denied the State's motion to dismiss the vicarious-liability claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondeat superior makes the State liable for Ripley’s rape	Ripley was on the job visiting Smith; his conduct was connected to his employment and thus within scope	Rape was a personal, willful deviation; Maguire establishes rape is outside employment scope	Court: Ripley acted outside scope; respondeat superior does not apply
Whether the State has vicarious liability under a nondelegable-duty (Restatement §214) theory	The State has statutory duties to protect families it intervenes in and a significant, continuing relationship with Smith, creating a nondelegable duty when it entrusted performance to Ripley	The State argued no basis to impose vicarious liability for acts outside scope and pointed to employee indemnification statute	Court: §214 applies given Montana statutes and the ongoing, state-imposed relationship; State can be liable despite Ripley acting outside scope
Whether the State is immune from suit for vicarious liability	Smith: Montana Constitution waives immunity for state torts except as provided by law	State: pointed to statutes about employee indemnification/defense to avoid liability	Court: Montana Constitution broadly waives immunity; indemnification statute does not bar liability; sovereign immunity claim rejected

Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011) (pleading standard and federal-question jurisdiction principles)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Maguire v. State, 835 P.2d 755 (Mont. 1992) (rape by employee is outside scope of employment)
Paull v. Park County, 218 P.3d 1198 (Mont. 2009) (adopting Restatement §214 nondelegable-duty rule against the State)
Kornec v. Mike Horse Mining & Milling Co., 180 P.2d 252 (Mont. 1947) (respondeat superior scope-of-employment principles)
Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003) (definition and effect of a nondelegable duty)