A motion for summary judgment is properly granted when there are no triable issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The defendant, AMN, was a medical staffing company that hired medical personnel and helped assign personnel to hospitals. AMN hired a woman named Theresa Drummond and placed her in a Kaiser medical facility. The plaintiff, Montague, was an assistant at Kaiser. The two women got into a few arguments. A few weeks later, Drummond poisoned Montague with carbolic acid from the facility in which they worked. Drummond sued AMN based on vicarious liability. The trial court granted AMN's motion for summary judgment because Drummond's actions were outside the scope of her employment. Montague appealed.
Did the trial court err when it granted summary judgment against an employer for an employee's tort that was not in the scope of her employment?
The court affirmed because the plaintiff could not survive summary judgment simply because AMN breached a duty to provide training regarding the avoidance of workplace violence and that the breach might have caused the injury. The plaintiff provided no other evidence that would suggest that AMN was liable.