## Facts

- AMN Healthcare, Inc., doing business as Nursefinders, hired Theresa Drummond as a medical assistant and assigned her to work at a Kaiser medical facility.
- Sara Montague, also a medical assistant at the Kaiser facility, had minor workplace disagreements with Drummond about routine tasks (e.g., stocking rooms and misplaced lab slips).
- Weeks later, Drummond intentionally poisoned Montague by placing carbolic acid, a substance available at the facility, into Montague’s water bottle.
- Montague and her husband sued Drummond and AMN/Nursefinders, asserting:
  - vicarious liability claims against AMN under respondeat superior for torts including negligence, battery, negligence per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
  - direct negligence claims alleging negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training (including training regarding workplace violence).
- AMN moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted the motion, and Montague appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether AMN could be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for Drummond’s intentional poisoning of a coworker as conduct within the course and scope of employment.
2. Whether Montague raised a triable issue of material fact that AMN was directly negligent in hiring, retaining, supervising, or training Drummond, and that any such negligence caused Montague’s injury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for AMN on all claims.
- Drummond’s intentional poisoning was outside the scope of employment because the employment relationship merely placed the tortfeasor and victim together, without a sufficient work-related causal connection.
- Montague failed to produce evidence creating a triable issue that AMN negligently hired, retained, supervised, or trained Drummond, or that any omission by AMN caused the poisoning.

## Legal Principles

- Respondeat superior requires a causal nexus between the employee’s tort and the employment; it is not enough that the job provided the opportunity or location for the tort.
- An employer’s vicarious liability generally extends only to acts that are required by, incidental to, or reasonably foreseeable in light of the employer’s enterprise; highly unusual criminal acts of personal animus typically fall outside the scope of employment.
- Direct liability for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or training requires evidence supporting breach and causation, including facts showing the employee was unfit or that the employer had reason to foresee the risk.
- On summary judgment, the plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find a triable dispute as to duty, breach, and causation.

## Conclusion

The court held that a staffing company was not liable for an assigned worker’s intentional poisoning of a coworker because the act lacked a sufficient connection to the worker’s job duties and the plaintiff offered no evidence creating a triable dispute that negligent hiring, supervision, or training by the staffing company caused the injury.


Montague v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 1515 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)