Keller v. Koca Brief

Procedural facts

            Plaintiff brought action against defendant for negligent supervision and premises liability.  Trial court finds in favor of plaintiff and awards damages.  Defendant appeals and the decision is affirmed.  Supreme Court granted defendants petition of certiorari.

Issue

            1)  Was sexual assault of a twelve-year-old girl committed on employer’s premises by an employee a foreseeable risk by the employer? 

2)  Does an employer owe a duty to protect all those on the employer’s premises regardless if their employees or if it’s during business hours?

Holding

            1)  Sexual assault of someone other than an employee and during business hours is not a foreseeable risk by the employer. 

2)  The employer owes no duty to protect those other than his employee’s and not during business hours.

Facts

            The plaintiff brought testimony of three former employees that Uzan sexually assaulted them while working for Keller during business hours.  Keller did not take any corrective action against Uzan.  The plaintiff did not present any evidence at trial that Keller knew or should have known that Uzan would bring a twelve year-old girl, with no connection to the dry cleaners, to Keller’s place of business when it was closed and then sexually assaulted there. 

Rationale

            In Ryder v. Mitchell a negligence claim fails where the law does not impose a duty on the defendant to act for the plaintiff’s benefit.  Whether a defendant in a particular negligence action owes a legal duty to the plaintiff is not a question of fact but is a question of law to be determined by the court.  After existence of a legal duty is established, the finder of fact is to determine whether the defendant breached that duty.

            In Moses V. Diocese, liability is established when the plaintiff must prove the employer has a duty to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to third persons to whom the employer knows or should have known that the employee would cause harm.

            According to vicarious liability, an employer is responsible for torts committed by employees working within the scope of their employment.

            In Fletcher v. Baltimore and Destefano v. Diocese of Colorado Springs the court found that the duty imposed on the defendant was to take reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable harm of a known risk.  That known risk was to female employees during business hours.

Disposition

            The Supreme Court reverses the decision of the court of appeals and remands this case to that court to consider the plaintiff’s alternate theory of premises liability.