## Facts

- Victor Norwood and friends went to an AMC movie theater located in a shopping mall.
- Theater manager Eric C. Adams and mall security confronted the group after reports they were being disruptive near the entrance.
- A dispute arose between Norwood and Adams at the concession area; Adams told Norwood to leave and escorted him out with a security guard.
- As the dispute escalated, Adams extended a collapsible baton but did not strike anyone; Norwood allegedly stated he had “something” for Adams in the car.
- Adams claimed he later saw Norwood near an open trunk removing what appeared to be a firearm; Adams went back inside and called 911.
- Police ordered Norwood out at gunpoint, handcuffed and arrested him, and searched the vehicle; no firearm was found.
- Norwood sued the mall owner (Simon Property Group, Inc.) and the theater entities (AMC Entertainment, Inc. and AMC Lowes Roosevelt Field 8) for personal injuries, asserting direct negligence theories and vicarious liability for Adams’s conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the mall owner could be held directly or vicariously liable for the alleged tortious acts of a movie-theater manager employed by a tenant.
2. Whether the theater entities were entitled to summary judgment dismissing (a) direct negligence claims and (b) respondeat superior claims based on the manager’s confrontation with Norwood and report to police.

## Decision

- Summary judgment for Simon Property Group, Inc. was affirmed; the complaint against Simon was dismissed.
- Summary judgment for the theater entities was affirmed as to direct negligence claims.
- Summary judgment for the theater entities was reversed in part as to vicarious liability; the respondeat superior claim against AMC was reinstated due to triable fact issues on scope of employment.

## Legal Principles

- A property owner is generally not vicariously liable for torts of a tenant’s employees absent evidence the owner controlled the tenant’s operations or the employee’s conduct.
- On summary judgment, a defendant must establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opponent must then raise a triable issue of fact.
- Direct negligence claims against an employer (e.g., negligent hiring/supervision) require proof the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity or unfitness for the complained-of conduct.
- Under respondeat superior, an employer may be liable for an employee’s torts committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment, even if intentional or unauthorized.
- An employee’s violation of internal rules does not, by itself, place conduct outside the scope of employment when the acts are connected to assigned duties such as maintaining order and safety.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held the mall owner was not liable because it did not employ or control the theater manager, dismissed direct negligence claims against the theater entities for lack of notice of unfitness, and allowed the vicarious liability claim against the theater entities to proceed because a factfinder could determine the manager’s actions were within the scope of his employment.


Norwood v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 200 A.D.3d 891 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2021)