Piedmont Hosp. Inc. v. Palladino

A hospital employee was not acting within the scope of his employment when he continued touching the plaintiff's groin area for his own gratification after he checked the plaintiff's surgical site.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this suit alleging an employer’s liability under the theory of respondeat superior, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer hospital, finding that even though the suit alleged the employee had deviated from his job responsibilities when causing harm, there was a jury question as to whether the deviation was so slight as to not affect the employer’s potential liability. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the employee’s actions were for purely personal reasons and did nothing to further the employer’s business. Accordingly, as explained below, the employer cannot be liable under a theory of respondeat superior as a matter of law. Therefore, we reverse. Appellee Albert Palladino underwent angioplasty surgery at appellant Piedmont Hospital, Inc. “Piedmont”. As part of Palladino’s surgery, a sheath was inserted in the femoral artery of his groin. Patterson, an employee of Piedmont, was responsible for providing post-surgical treatment to Palladino and was authorized to enter Palladino’s hospital room alone, check the groin area for any bleeding or complications, clean the area, and, if necessary, move Palladino’s testicles in order to perform these tasks.

Palladino alleged that following his surgery, he awoke to discover Patterson rubbing his Palladino’s penis with both hands. Palladino also alleged that Patterson’s mouth was positioned near his penis. In addition to filing suit against Patterson, Palladino and his wife filed suit against Piedmont under a theory of respondeat superior for assault, battery and loss of consortium. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Piedmont on the ground that “it is well settled under Georgia law that an employer is not responsible for the sexual misconduct of an employee.”1 The Court of Appeals reversed and we granted certiorari.

Piedmont Hosp. Inc. v. Palladino

A hospital employee was not acting within the scope of his employment when he continued touching the plaintiff's groin area for his own gratification after he checked the plaintiff's surgical site.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report