Seegers v. Shibley Summer Day Camp, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seegers v. Shibley Summer Day Camp, Inc.

255 A.D.2d 499, 680 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12658

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 499 (Seegers v. Shibley Summer Day Camp, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seegers v. Shibley Summer Day Camp, Inc., 255 A.D.2d 499, 680 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated December 3, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that an employer will not be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employee which are outside the scope of employment and not in furtherance of the [500]*500employer’s business (see, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302). Here, the defendant is not liable for the actions of its junior staff members in tying, gagging, and locking the infant plaintiff in a shed, as those acts were personally motivated, not within the scope of employment, and not in furtherance of camp business. Additionally, the defendant is not liable for the failure of the infant plaintiff’s camp counselor to accompany the infant plaintiff to the shed, as that failure was not the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries. Finally, the defendant is not liable under a theory of negligent hiring, supervision, or training as the defendant had no notice of the employees’ propensities for these acts (see, Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese, 229 AD2d 159, cert denied 522 US 967). O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated December 3, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that an employer will not be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employee which are outside the scope of employment and not in furtherance of the [500]*500employer’s business (see, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302). Here, the defendant is not liable for the actions of its junior staff members in tying, gagging, and locking the infant plaintiff in a shed, as those acts were personally motivated, not within the scope of employment, and not in furtherance of camp business. Additionally, the defendant is not liable for the failure of the infant plaintiff’s camp counselor to accompany the infant plaintiff to the shed, as that failure was not the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries. Finally, the defendant is not liable under a theory of negligent hiring, supervision, or training as the defendant had no notice of the employees’ propensities for these acts (see, Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese, 229 AD2d 159, cert denied 522 US 967). O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 499, 680 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seegers-v-shibley-summer-day-camp-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack