## Facts

- Roland Davis, a severely developmentally disabled minor with documented aggressive behavior, lived at a residential facility operated by Devereux.
- Devereux hired Charlene McClain as a resident counselor after a background check showing no criminal record or prior violent history.
- In the days before the incident, Davis had conflicts with McClain, including kicking her and a physical altercation requiring intervention.
- On October 9, 2004, while assigned to wake and dress Davis, McClain heated a cup of water and poured the boiling water on him.
- Davis was hospitalized for six days and alleged permanent scarring.
- McClain admitted Davis was not violent that morning and stated she acted because she was angry and dealing with personal grief.
- McClain was convicted and incarcerated for the assault.
- Davis’s guardian sued Devereux and McClain, asserting (among other theories) negligent care/supervision, a “non-delegable duty” to protect residents from employee intentional torts, and vicarious liability under respondeat superior.

## Issues

1. Whether a residential institution caring for developmentally disabled residents has a non-delegable duty making it liable for intentional torts committed by employees, regardless of the institution’s own negligence.
2. Whether an employee’s criminal assault on a resident could be found within the scope of employment so as to impose vicarious liability on the employer under respondeat superior.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held Devereux did not have a non-delegable duty to protect residents from intentional harms inflicted by its employees on the facts presented.
- The Court held no rational factfinder could conclude McClain’s act of pouring boiling water on Davis was within the scope of her employment.
- The Court reversed the Appellate Division on scope of employment and reinstated summary judgment for Devereux.
- The Court left undisturbed the application of the Charitable Immunity Act to bar negligence-based claims by a beneficiary against a qualifying nonprofit.

## Legal Principles

- Caregivers acting in loco parentis to persons with developmental disabilities owe a duty of reasonable care, but that duty does not automatically become a non-delegable duty imposing liability for unforeseeable, intentional criminal acts of properly vetted and supervised employees.
- Whether to recognize an expanded duty turns on factors including the parties’ relationship, nature of the risk, ability to exercise care, and public policy.
- The Charitable Immunity Act can bar ordinary negligence claims by a direct beneficiary against a qualifying charitable organization, limiting recovery to viable intentional-tort or vicarious-liability theories where applicable.
- Respondeat superior requires conduct of the kind the employee is employed to perform, within authorized time and space limits, and motivated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer.
- An intentional, criminal assault motivated by personal anger and unrelated to serving the employer’s interests is outside the scope of employment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court declined to impose strict institutional responsibility through a non-delegable duty for an employee’s intentional assault in a residential care setting and held the counselor’s scalding attack was outside the scope of employment, eliminating vicarious liability and restoring summary judgment for the nonprofit caregiver.


Davis v. Devereux Found., 209 N.J. 269, 37 A.3d 469 (N.J. 2012)