33 N.Y.2d 275 (1973)

The State can be held liable for the intentional torts, such as assault and battery, committed by its employees, like State troopers, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, even when those employees are engaged in “governmental” activities.

Summary

Lynda Jones, as administratrix, sued the State of New York for the wrongful death of her husband, a civilian employee at Attica Correctional Facility who was killed during the prison uprising and subsequent retaking by State troopers. The claim alleged negligence in failing to warn him of the riot and intentional tort (assault and battery) by a State trooper. The Court of Appeals held that while the negligence claim was barred by the exclusivity of workmen’s compensation, the claim for intentional tort could proceed. The court reasoned that the State’s waiver of immunity in the Court of Claims Act made it liable for the intentional torts of its employees under respondeat superior, even when those employees were performing “governmental” functions, and that the troopers may have used excessive force.

Facts

Herbert Jones, Jr., the claimant’s decedent, was employed by the Department of Correctional Services as an accounts clerk at Attica State Correctional Facility. His job was clerical and did not involve guarding or disciplining prisoners. During the Attica uprising on September 9, 1971, Jones was taken hostage. During the retaking of the prison on September 13, 1971, a State trooper allegedly shot Jones in the head, chest, and back, causing his death.

Procedural History

The claimant filed a claim in the Court of Claims alleging negligence and intentional tort. The State moved to dismiss, arguing that workmen’s compensation was the exclusive remedy and that sovereign immunity barred the claim. The Court of Claims denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, granting the State’s motion and dismissing the claim, holding that the State was immune because it acted in its sovereign capacity. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the intentional tort claim.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the claimant’s negligence claim is barred by the exclusivity provisions of workmen’s compensation.
2. Whether the State can be held liable for the intentional tort of assault and battery committed by a State trooper during the retaking of Attica prison, resulting in the death of a civilian employee/hostage.

Holding

1. Yes, because the claim alleges negligence while the decedent was performing his clerical duties.
2. Yes, because the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity in the Court of Claims Act makes it liable for the intentional torts of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior, even when the employees are engaged in “governmental” activities, and the claim alleges an unjustifiable assault.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the negligence claim was properly dismissed because workmen’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained during the course of employment. However, the court found that the claim for intentional tort (assault and battery) stated a valid cause of action. The court relied on the Court of Claims Act, which waived the State’s immunity from liability and subjected it to the same rules of law as applied to individuals or corporations. The court cited a line of cases holding the State or municipalities liable for the actions of their police officers in the line of duty. Prior to the waiver of immunity, police officers were considered public officers whose actions in governmental activities could not create liability for the State. However, after the waiver of immunity, the State became liable for the torts of its agents on the basis of respondeat superior, even if the agent was engaged in “governmental” activity. The court distinguished Weiss v. Fote, which involved planning highway safety, as irrelevant to the instant case of alleged assault.

The court rejected the argument that the Attica riot should bar recovery, stating that retaking the prison was no more “governmental” than making an arrest or investigating a traffic infraction. The court emphasized that excessive force used by troopers during these activities was sufficient to hold the State liable. The court noted that claimant faced a heavy burden of proof, given the chaotic conditions, but the McKay Commission’s report indicated that the State troopers’ assault was “marred by excesses” and that the type of ammunition used presented “a high risk of injury and death to unresisting inmates and hostages.”

Judge Jasen dissented, arguing that the manner and means of coping with the Attica uprising was a basic discretionary policy decision made at the highest levels of the executive branch and should be immune from judicial review under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. He contended that this case differed from typical police tort cases because it involved a policy decision concerning how to handle a crisis situation, implicating separation of powers concerns. The majority rejected this argument by implication.