eNotes: Liability – July 2024 – Virginia

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

H.C. v. Potomac Hosp. Corp. of Prince William
Virginia Court of Appeals
No. 20521-23-4

Decided: June 4, 2024

An employer cannot be held vicariously liable for a sexual assault committed by an employee who is motivated purely for personal reasons.

Background

Plaintiff presented with severe pain caused by complications from HIV. After being admitted, a nurse allegedly sexually assaulted her. Plaintiff then brought suit against the nurse and his employer, Potomac Hospital Corporation of Prince William under the theory of vicarious liability. At the close of all the evidence, Potomac made a motion to strike the evidence. Potomac argued that during trial, the nurse admitted that sexually touching a patient was against policy, against the law, and not “empathetic,” meaning he acted totally outside the employer’s mission. Plaintiff argued that the nurse testified that he sexually touched Plaintiff in a misguided attempt to reassure her that she was desirable, despite her HIV diagnosis. The Trial Court granted Potomac’s Motion to strike.

The Trial Court acknowledged that the nurse testified that he was attempting to “comfort” Plaintiff, but noted an absence of evidence that would connect the nurse’s official duties to the sexual assault. The Trial Court further found that the nurse’s “claimed compassion” was unrelated to the alleged sexual battery. Accordingly, the Trial Court concluded that the assault occurred outside the nurse’s scope of employment, and Potomac was dismissed from the case. Plaintiff appealed on the grounds that the evidence did not prove, as a matter of law, that the nurse was not acting in the scope of his employment when he assaulted her.

Holding

In order to hold an employer vicariously liable, the nurse must have committed the assault while performing his employer’s business and acting within the scope of his employment. Merely being “on the clock” is not sufficient. Further, an act is committed within the scope of employment only if it is motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. An employee may perform acts of molestation with a “mixed motive” to further the employer and an internal, personal motive. While the Court acknowledged that the nurse’s stated motive was to “reassure” and “comfort” Plaintiff, the nurse also testified that he knew inappropriate touching would be against his employer’s policies, illegal, and contrary to his duty to show empathy to patients. As a result, the Court concluded that the sexual battery did not occur within the scope of employment, and the Trial Court’s ruling was affirmed.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicolette DeFrank at (571) 470-0395 or ndefrank@tthlaw.com.