Arizona Supreme Court Expands Respondeat Superior Liability For Employers

• Jurisdiction: Arizona,United States
• Law Firm: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Professional Negligence
• Author: Taylor H. Allin, Brian Del Gatto and Alexis Nicole Tinucci
• Published date: 19 May 2023

On April 28, 2023, in a 4-3 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a respondeat superior claim against an employer remains viable even if the underlying employee-claim is dismissed with prejudice for reasons unrelated to the merits of the respondeat superior claim. In Laurence v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., defendant Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District (SRP) argued that it could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employee driver because the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the driver on the negligence claim. CV-21-0292-PR. By contrast, plaintiff Jacob Laurence argued that SRP could still be vicariously liable for its driver's actions because summary judgment was granted for reasons unrelated to the merits of the negligence claim. In agreeing with Laurence, the Arizona Supreme Court overruled a substantial portion of its longstanding precedent in DeGraff v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 261 (1945) and undoubtedly expanded the potential exposure faced by employers in all aspects of civil litigation.

Background

Laurence and his minor son were involved in a motor vehicle accident with a truck owned by SRP and operated by SRP's employee, John Gabrielson. Laurence alleged the accident was caused by Gabrielson's negligence, and SRP was vicariously liable for his negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Due to SRP's status as a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Laurence was required to file a claim against SRP and Gabrielson as a public employee within 180 days after the cause of action accrued pursuant to A.R.S. ' 12-821.01. While Laurence filed a timely claim against SRP, he did not file a claim against Gabrielson until well after the 180 days had passed. Once Laurence filed his action in the trial court, Gabrielson moved for summary judgment based on Laurence's failure to comply with A.R.S. ' 12-821.01(A). The trial court granted the motion as it pertained to Laurence's negligence claim against Gabrielson. SRP then moved for partial summary judgment against Laurence on his respondeat superior claim based on the dismissal of Gabrielson from the action. The trial court granted SRP's motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the partial summary judgment entered in favor of SRP and remanded it to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Arizona Supreme Court Ruling

The Court acknowledged that it was overruling a...