Maria D. v. Westec Residential Sec., Inc.

I. Introduction

This case involves the potential respondeat superior liability of a private security company for an alleged sexual assault by an on-duty security guard. *129 Plaintiff, Maria D., appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant, Westec Residential Security, Inc. (Westec). The trial court summarily adjudicated that Westec could not be held vicariously liable for an alleged rape committed by one of its employees, an on-duty security guard. We agree that, as a matter of law, under Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 208-211, 213-222 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 99 , 814 P.2d 1341 ] {Mary M), Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1003-1020 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 478 , 906 P.2d 440 ] {Farmers), and Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 296-306 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 510 , 907 P.2d 358 ] {Lisa M.), Westec could not be held liable under the respondeat superior doctrine because the alleged rape was not within the scope of the security guard’s employment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

II. Background

Plaintiff alleges she was raped by an on-duty Westec security guard in September 1997. Plaintiff filed…

I concur in the judgment. I also concur in the majority opinion with the exception of the final two paragraphs, the “two final observations.” In my view, the first observation is gratuitous and unnecessary. Plaintiff tried her negligent hiring and retention cause of action to a jury and lost. The issue of the security guard’s liability is not before us.

As to the second observation, it is pure dicta. We have been presented with a factual scenario in which the employer adopted and enforced written *151 policies. We need not speculate for future cases as to what the result might be in the absence of written policies or upon the failure to enforce written policies.

On December 20, 2000, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 21, 2001. Mosk, J., and Werdegar, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

This case involves the potential respondeat superior liability of a private security company for an alleged sexual assault by an on-duty security guard. Plaintiff, Maria D., appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant, Westec Residential Security, Inc. (Westec). The trial court summarily adjudicated that Westec could not be held vicariously liable for an alleged rape committed by one of its employees, an on-duty security guard. We agree that, as a matter of law, under Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 208-211, 213-222 , 285 Cal.Rptr. 99 , 814 P.2d 1341 ( Mary M.) , Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1003-1020 , 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 478 , 906 P.2d 440 ( Farmers ), and Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 296-306 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 510 , 907 P.2d 358 ( Lisa M. ), Westec could not be held liable under the respondeat superior doctrine because the alleged rape was not within the scope of the security guard's employment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. [1]

Plaintiff alleges she was raped by an on-duty Westec security guard in September 1997. Plaintiff filed the present action against…