stating that courts may decide whether the agent was acting within the scope of his or her employment as a matter of law when the evidence shows that the agent was acting to further his or her own ends
How later courts described this case
- stating that courts may decide whether the agent was acting within the scope of his or her employment as a matter of law when the evidence shows that the agent was acting to further his or her own ends
- holding that a building manager’s outrageous conduct in shooting a tenant was not within the scope of employment, despite the manager’s authority to protect the building
- holding an employer was not liable for a building manager who shot a resident in his own apartment and outside of business hours
- landlord not liable under respondeat superior where building manager shot tenant for no apparent reason because building manager not authorized to carry a gun and landlord had no reason to foresee manager’s actions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice T. E. Brennan
dissented, noting:
Public safety is the business of government.
Today’s decision concedes the failure of government to make the streets and homes of certain areas reasonably safe and, in effect, transfers the governmental function of public protection to the unfortunate owners of real property in such places.
Already overburdened by taxes largely laid to pay for public safety, these owners will now be required to maintain additional lighting, guards, enclosures, alarms, locks and take every other precaution to avoid reasonably foreseeable conditions which attract criminals to carry out their nefarious deeds. [Id. at 576.]
In Samson v Saginaw Professional Building, Inc, 393 Mich 393 ; 224 NW2d 843 (1975), the plaintiff worked for a lawyer who leased an office on the fifth floor of the defendant’s building. The Saginaw Mental Health Clinic also leased space in the *94 defendant’s building, but on the fourth floor. The clinic treated mental health patients, including those from Traverse City State Hospital and from Ionia State Prison. Tenants in the defendant’s building told defendant’s representatives that they were afraid of the clinic’s patients, who had to use the stairs and elevators to reach the clinic. The defendant took no action. The plaintiff was attacked by one of the clinic’s patients in an elevator.
Our Supreme Court held:
Whether or not the landlord retains any responsibility for actions which occur within the confines of the now leased premises is not now before this Court and need not be answered. It would appear, however, that he would not retain any responsibility for such actions except in the most unusual circumstances. However, the landlord has retained his responsibility for the common areas of the building which are not leased to his tenants. The common areas such as the halls, lobby, stairs, elevators, etc., are leased to no individual tenant and remain the responsibility of the landlord. It is his responsibility to insure that these areas are kept in good repair and reasonably safe for the use of his tenants and invitees.
The existence of this relationship between the defendant and its tenants and invitees placed a duty upon the landlord to protect them from unreasonable risk of physical harm. [Id. at 407. Emphasis supplied.]
In an addendum to its opinion, our Supreme Court noted the following reasonable actions which the defendant could have taken:
An ordinarily prudent person might have rented to the state only office space on the first floor so that mental patients would have no need to use elevators, stairwells, or other common areas of the *95 building. He might have placed a guard on the elevators to protect people lawfully using them. [Id. at 410.]