## Facts

- James E. Woodfin entered a Knoxville Revco store on May 4, 1997, and allegedly caused a disruption.
- Danny Boone, a Knoxville police officer, was working off duty as Revco’s paid security guard.
- Boone issued Woodfin a misdemeanor citation for disorderly conduct and warned him not to return to the store.
- About a month later, Revco’s manager told Boone that Woodfin had returned to the store despite the warning.
- While working as Revco security, Boone contacted the police department about the citation’s status and learned a bench warrant had issued after Woodfin failed to report for booking.
- The complaint alleged Boone, acting under the Revco manager’s direction, arranged for officers (including himself) to serve the bench warrant at Woodfin’s apartment.
- Officers went to Woodfin’s residence to execute the warrant; during the encounter, officers shot and killed Woodfin.
- Woodfin’s heirs filed a wrongful death action alleging Boone’s negligent and wrongful conduct and sought to hold Revco vicariously liable under respondeat superior.

## Issues

1. Whether a private employer may be held vicariously liable for an off-duty police officer’s allegedly negligent acts when the officer was hired for private security.
2. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts that the off-duty officer acted as the private employer’s agent within the scope of private employment, making dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) improper.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the claim against Revco and remanded for further proceedings.
- Taking the allegations as true, the complaint stated a claim that Boone acted within the scope of his Revco employment and under Revco’s direction when he initiated and participated in events leading to the attempted warrant service.
- The court declined to adopt a categorical rule that “police in nature” conduct is attributable only to the officer’s public role and never to the private employer.
- The court emphasized it did not decide ultimate liability; it held only that plaintiffs pleaded a legally sufficient basis to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12.02(6) motion, the court accepts factual allegations as true, construes them liberally in the plaintiff’s favor, and dismisses only when no set of facts would entitle the plaintiff to relief.
- Respondeat superior liability turns on traditional agency principles, including whether the alleged tortfeasor acted within the scope of employment, under the employer’s direction or control, and for the employer’s benefit.
- The “law-enforcement character” of an act is not dispositive of whether the actor was furthering a private employer’s business; the relevant inquiry is for whom the actor was working at the time.
- Where pleadings allege employer direction and employer benefit from an off-duty officer’s conduct, scope-of-employment and agency are fact questions generally unsuitable for resolution at the dismissal stage.

## Conclusion

The court held that the wrongful death complaint plausibly alleged that an off-duty officer, hired as store security, acted as the private employer’s agent when he pursued actions leading to an attempted warrant service; traditional agency analysis governed, and dismissal was reversed for factual development on scope of employment and vicarious liability.


White v. Revco Discount Drug Ctrs., Inc., 33 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. 2000)