This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a partnership, alleged that an individual, who performed clerical and financial services for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, embezzled approximately $57,663.89 from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant was vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior and also alleged negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of the individual by the Defendant. The Defendant denied liability, asserting that the individual was a "loaned" or "special" employee of the Plaintiff and acted outside the scope of her employment during the alleged embezzlement (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the individual was an employee of the Defendant at the time of the embezzlement and that the Defendant was vicariously liable under respondeat superior. Additionally, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant was negligent in hiring, supervising, and retaining the individual (paras 2, 6).
- Defendant: Contended that the individual was a "loaned" or "special" employee of the Plaintiff and that her alleged embezzlement was outside the scope of her employment. The Defendant also denied any negligence in hiring, supervising, or retaining the individual (paras 3-4).
Legal Issues
- Was the individual an employee of the Defendant at the time of the alleged embezzlement?
- Did the individual act within the scope of her employment with the Defendant during the alleged embezzlement?
- Was the Defendant negligent in hiring, supervising, or retaining the individual?
Disposition
- The Court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's claims based on respondeat superior and negligent hiring.
- The Court reversed the summary judgment on the claims of negligent supervision and retention and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 23).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Bivins and Apodaca JJ. concurring):
Respondeat Superior: The Court found that even if the individual was an employee of the Defendant, her acts of embezzlement were motivated by personal reasons and did not further the Defendant's interests. Therefore, the acts were outside the scope of her employment, and the Defendant could not be held liable under respondeat superior (paras 12-18).
Negligent Hiring: The Court determined that there was no evidence to suggest the Defendant failed to properly investigate the individual's background or that the Defendant knew or should have known of any untrustworthiness or prior criminal conduct at the time of hiring. Thus, the claim of negligent hiring was properly dismissed (para 20).
Negligent Supervision and Retention: The Court held that material factual issues existed regarding whether the Defendant retained control over the individual's work and whether the Defendant negligently failed to supervise or retain her after becoming aware of her misconduct. These issues required resolution by a fact-finder, and summary judgment on these claims was improper (paras 21-22).
The case was remanded for further proceedings on the claims of negligent supervision and retention (para 23).