Spitsin v. WGM Transportation, Inc.
97 A.3d 774
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Spitsin sued WGM Transportation under respondeat superior for Johnson's assault while Spitsin was restrained after fare dispute at a Stroudsburg Wawa (jaw fracture).
- Johnson, on-duty WGM taxi driver, confronted Spitsin over unpaid fare and attempted to collect it after bystander restrained Spitsin.
- Johnson allegedly punched and kicked Spitsin in the face while he was held on the ground; injury diagnosed as hairline jaw fracture.
- Trial court sustained WGM’s preliminary objections, dismissing the respondeat superior claim as a matter of law.
- Spitsin appealed; issue presented: whether Johnson’s use of force was so excessive as to depart from the scope of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Johnson's force so excessive as to depart from employment scope? | Spitsin: force was outrageous and outside scope. | WGM: force within attempted fare collection and scope of employment. | Yes; force departed from employment scope as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzgerald v. McCutcheon, 410 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 1979) (outrageous acts can remove conduct from scope of employment)
- Howard v. Zaney Bar, 85 A.2d 401 (Pa. 1952) (bar’s use of force deemed outside scope when excessive and shocking)
- Costa v. Roxborough Mem. Hosp., 708 A.2d 490 (Pa. Super. 1998) (scope determined by foreseeability and degree of force)
- Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228, not applicable (cited) (outlines scope of employment and exceptions for unanticipatable force)
- McClung v. Dearborne, 19 A. 698 (Pa. 1890) (employer liable for agents' forcible repossession actions)
- McLaughlin v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 75 Pa. Super. 533 (Pa. Super. 1920) (employer liable where agents’ acts are in furtherance yet outrageous)
- Straiton v. Rosinsky, 133 A.2d 257 (Pa. Super. 1957) (theater usher strikes patron; vicarious liability analyzed)
- McMaster v. Reale, 110 A.2d 831 (Pa. Super. 1955) (jury deference in scope-of-employment questions)
- Brennan v. Merchant & Co., 54 A. 891 (Pa. 1903) (general rule that employment liability exists despite abuse of authority)
- Orr v. Wm. J. Burns Int'l Detective Agency, 12 A.2d 25 (Pa. 1940) (early scope of employment considerations in agency)