This is not my area of law.
But there are other aspects of liability. I might not be able to sue McDonald’s for vicarious liability for a cook deciding to splash me with hot oil. McDonald’s clearly doesn’t want it’s cooks to do that, and undoubtedly has strong policies that forbid it. It would be nearly impossible to argue that the cook’s hot oil attack was done in furtherance of his cooking duties.
But I might be able to sue McDonald’s under other theories, such as negligent hiring, training, or supervision. Sure, they didn’t want the cook to attack people with hot oil, but did their screening process weed out people with anger issues whose hot oil attacks might reasonably be foreseen? Did their training include warning signs for co-workers, so that such an incident would be detected in its early stages and stopped? Were managers instructed and empowered to act to reasonably assess such dangers and mitigate them?
Those are some of the kinds of theories under which the restaurant itself might be sued.
Now, Denver. Assuming the homeless man beaten by the deputy sheriff is the correct story, it seems that Denver was not, in fact, a party to the suit. The judgement was against the former deputy alone; the city was not a party to the trial.
Under some circumstances, though, the city indemnifies its employees – that is, it agrees to defend them and hold them harmless if they are sued for acts arising out of their employment.
It appears that this indemnification is at issue here. The city was not sued, and did not lose – but once the deputy lost, the city might have been on the hook to pay…a valuable outcome from the plaintiff’s point of view, since the deputy might not have the resources to pay the judgment and the city certainly does.
But the city says these particular facts don’t trigger its duty to indemnify.
Can the OP explain why he believes the city is incorrect in that assessment?
