126 P.3d 602 (Okla. 2005)
On September 6, 1998, Stella Baker, an employee of Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital, left her two-month-old daughter Summer at Ave Maria Child Care, a daycare facility operated by Saint Francis Hospital for its employees and affiliates.1
When Baker returned around 3:30 p.m. to pick up her daughter, she heard Summer crying and observed two small red marks on the right side of her temple. Davis, Summer's regular caregiver, stated she did not know how the marks occurred.2
Later that evening while bathing Summer at home, Baker noticed swelling on the right side of the infant's head. She contacted her pediatrician's office and was directed to the emergency room at Saint Francis Hospital. Physicians there diagnosed Summer with two bilateral depressed skull fractures and traumatic brain injury.3
The Bakers alleged that Davis had allowed Summer to fall from her crib while changing a diaper, contributing to the injuries. The parties agreed, however, that Davis intentionally struck Summer's head against the corner of a shelf at the daycare.4 On September 14, 1999, Davis pled guilty to injury to a minor child pursuant to a plea agreement that imposed a ten-year sentence, with seven years in custody. In the Findings of Fact and Acceptance of Plea document, Davis stated that she hit Summer's head against the cubby because the child would not stop crying.5
The Bakers filed suit against Saint Francis Hospital, asserting liability under the theory of respondeat superior for both Davis's negligent and intentional acts. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the Bakers' motion and granted the hospital's motion. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the matter.6
Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Saint Francis Hospital on the Bakers' claim that Summer suffered traumatic brain injury from a fall from the crib?7
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.8 On review the court examines the evidentiary materials and views all inferences and conclusions in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. If a genuine issue of material fact remains, summary judgment is improper.9
Yes. The record shows that the Bakers alleged Summer suffered traumatic brain injury as a result of either or both the fall from the crib and the striking against the shelf.10 The physician's deposition testimony, offered by the hospital, states that without being present nobody could say that these fractures weren't caused by a fall, and the doctor's answers addressed only the cause of the fractures rather than the traumatic brain injury.11 Because the issue of causation for the brain injury therefore remains in controversy when all inferences are drawn in favor of the Bakers, summary judgment on this claim was improper.12
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the fall-related claim because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding causation of the traumatic brain injury.13
Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Saint Francis Hospital on the Bakers' respondeat superior claim for Davis's intentional striking of Summer's head against a shelf?14
An employer is liable for an employee's tort if the act was committed in the course of employment and within the scope of the employee's authority.15 An exception holds the employer responsible when the act is incidental to and done in furtherance of the employer's business even if the employee acted willfully or maliciously.16 The question whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment is normally one for the jury unless only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the facts.17
Yes. Davis stated in the plea document she hit Summer's head against the cubby because the child was crying and would not stop crying.18 This statement does not unequivocally reveal whether Davis's motivation was a misguided attempt to quiet the infant while performing her employment duties or instead arose from purely personal irritation.19
Because the purpose or motivation behind the act is a question of fact that must be resolved by the jury under appropriate instructions, summary judgment on the respondeat superior claim was improper.20
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the respondeat superior claim because the record presents a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Davis acted within the scope of employment.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Opala concurred separately that the core issue of whether the caregiver-assailant believed she was furthering the master's interests or acted on a personal emotional impulse presents an agency-status question of fact.22 He explained that abandonment of a mission for the master occurs through a change in the servant's mental state that must be divined from the totality of circumstances including behavior at and immediately before the critical moment.23 Opala noted that the guilty plea and statements support inferences for both exoneration and liability, that the choice between opposite inferences belongs to the trier of fact, and that submission of the respondeat superior issue to the jury is commanded by Art.
2, § 19, Okl. Const.24 He emphasized that only one reasonable deduction from the facts would permit a court to rule as a matter of law and that the record here does not support but a single inference.25