## Facts

- Jose Offerman played professional baseball for the Long Island Ducks (the Ducks) in the independent Atlantic League.
- Johnathan Nathans played professional baseball for the Bridgeport Bluefish (the Bluefish) in the same league.
- During an August 14, 2007 game between the Ducks and the Bluefish in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Offerman was hit by a pitch while batting.
- Offerman charged the pitcher while holding a bat, triggering a bench-clearing fight.
- During the on-field melee, Offerman struck Nathans (the Bluefish’s catcher) in the head with the bat, causing serious injury.
- Nathans sued Offerman for assault and battery (and related intentional/reckless tort theories) and also pled negligence based on the same incident.
- Nathans sought to hold the Ducks liable under respondeat superior for Offerman’s on-field conduct.
- An intervenor plaintiff asserted claims tied to Nathans’s assigned economic losses.
- The Ducks moved for summary judgment, arguing that Offerman’s actions were outside the scope of employment and that, in any event, the Ducks could not be liable for punitive damages on a vicarious-liability theory.

## Issues

1. Whether a reasonable jury could find that Offerman’s bat strike during a bench-clearing fight occurred within the scope of his employment as a Ducks player, allowing vicarious liability against the Ducks under respondeat superior.
2. Whether the record supported a negligence theory (as opposed to intentional or reckless tort theories) based on Offerman charging the mound with a bat and striking Nathans.
3. Whether Connecticut law permits punitive damages to be imposed on an employer solely through respondeat superior for an employee’s tort.

## Decision

- The court denied summary judgment on the Ducks’ potential vicarious liability for Offerman’s intentional/reckless torts because the scope-of-employment question was for the jury on this record.
- The court granted summary judgment against the negligence claim because the conduct alleged could not reasonably be treated as merely negligent given the nature of the act.
- The court granted summary judgment for the Ducks on punitive damages because Connecticut law does not allow vicarious punitive damages based only on respondeat superior.

## Legal Principles

- Under Connecticut respondeat superior, an employer may be liable for an employee’s torts if the employee acted within the scope of employment; this commonly turns on time and place, the kind of conduct the employee was hired to perform, and whether the act was at least partly motivated to serve the employer.
- Even an intentional tort may fall within the scope of employment when it arises from and occurs during the employee’s assigned work activity, and when the connection to that activity is sufficiently close to be treated as a fact question for the jury.
- Where the evidence shows deliberate, aggressive conduct (such as charging with a bat and swinging), a plaintiff cannot reframe the same conduct as simple negligence to reach a different liability standard.
- The doctrine of transferred intent can support assault/battery liability where the defendant intended to make harmful or offensive contact with one person but instead injured another.
- Connecticut law does not impose punitive damages on an employer solely because an employee is liable; some independent basis beyond respondeat superior is required.

## Conclusion

The court held that a jury could reasonably find Offerman’s bat attack during an on-field fight to be within the scope of his employment as a professional baseball player, so the Ducks were not entitled to summary judgment on respondeat superior for the intentional/reckless tort claims. However, the court rejected the negligence count as incompatible with the alleged conduct and ruled that the Ducks could not be held liable for punitive damages on a purely vicarious-liability theory under Connecticut law.


Nathans v. Offerman, 922 F. Supp. 2d 271 (2013)