## Facts

- The District’s Department of Human Services (DHS) removed two-year-old Mykeeda Hampton from her mother’s care and placed her with foster parent Geraldine Stevenson.
- Stevenson left Mykeeda at home with Stevenson’s two minor sons for more than ten hours.
- During that period, one son beat Mykeeda to death.
- The child’s mother sued Stevenson for negligence and sued the District for (1) vicarious liability based on an agency theory and (2) direct negligence in DHS’s selection and monitoring of the foster placement.
- A jury returned a verdict for the mother, and the trial court entered judgment and denied the District’s post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), new trial, or remittitur.

## Issues

1. Whether claims that DHS negligently selected and monitored a foster placement required expert testimony to establish the applicable professional standard of care and breach.
2. Whether the foster parent was the District’s agent/servant so as to impose respondeat superior liability for her negligence.

## Decision

- The court reversed the judgment against the District.
- The court held expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care and breach for DHS social workers’ foster-care placement and monitoring decisions, and none was offered.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to establish an agency or master-servant relationship between the District and the foster parent because the District lacked a right to control her day-to-day caregiving.
- The court concluded the District was entitled to JNOV.

## Legal Principles

- When alleged negligence concerns specialized professional conduct outside common lay knowledge, the plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the standard of care and its breach, absent an obvious lack of due care.
- Respondeat superior requires proof of a principal-agent (or master-servant) relationship and that the tort occurred within the scope of that relationship.
- The key consideration in determining agency/servant status is the principal’s right to control the manner and means of the alleged agent’s performance; general regulatory requirements and licensing do not establish day-to-day control.
- The party asserting agency bears the burden of proving it.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the jury’s liability finding against the District because the plaintiff failed to prove DHS’s alleged professional negligence without expert evidence and failed to show the foster parent was the District’s agent under a right-to-control analysis, defeating respondeat superior.


District of Columbia v. Hampton, 666 A.2d 30 (D.C. 1995)