holding, under North Carolina law, intentional torts committed by a city employee while acting within the scope of his duties were "occurrences" within meaning of the church's liability policy because the city did not expect or intend that its employee would assault a third party
How later courts described this case
- holding, under North Carolina law, intentional torts committed by a city employee while acting within the scope of his duties were "occurrences" within meaning of the church's liability policy because the city did not expect or intend that its employee would assault a third party
- holding that assault by employee against customer, arising out of dispute concerning services that employee was performing, not outside scope of employment as a matter of law
- holding that evidence that sanitation worker grabbed and hit plaintiff in the course of dispute about the manner in which the worker collected plaintiffs refuse precluded summary judgment on the scope-of-employment question
- sanitation worker grabbed and hit plaintiff after dispute about the manner in which the worker collected plaintiffs refuse
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge HILL
dissenting.
I must dissent. The situation must be divided into two parts: one occurring on the premises of Mrs. Edwards where Akion refued to remove a tire because it was located at the rear of the Edwards’ house, and the second at the street when Akion had completed his job of collecting Mrs. Edwards’ garbage. Mrs. Edwards had followed Akion to the street, continuing her verbal assault, calling Akion a “S.O.B.” It was after Akion had completed his assigned duties that he assaulted Mrs. Edwards, suddenly and without warning, in a public place. The assault arose as a per *700 sonal retaliation by Akion against Mrs. Edwards and in no way as furtherance of the employer’s business or in the discharge of employment. I find Munich, supra, distinguishable. I do not find the assault committed while Akion was acting within the scope of his duties. The decision of the trial judge should be affirmed.