RICHMOND, Va. (Legal Newsline) — The Virginia Supreme Court has granted a nursing home's appeal and reversed a circuit court's final judgment while ordering the retrial of a case involving a nursing assistant who allegedly raped an 85-year-old resident.
According to the Aug. 30 filing of the Virginia Supreme Court, appellant Our Lady of Peace Inc. filed an appeal against appellee Barbara Morgan, administrator of the estate of Gertrude Austin, deceased, and others, challenging the Albemarle County Circuit Court's rulings regarding evidence and the nursing assistant's actions taking place while he acted within the scope of employment.
"The trial court erred in removing the scope-of-employment issue from the jury based upon its ruling on Our Lady of Peace’s plea in bar, which it later implemented through its ruling on the motion in limine and through its jury instruction," Justice Arthur Kelsey wrote in the Virginia Supreme Court's opinion.
"The court also erred in excluding Our Lady of Peace’s expert witness and in admitting the challenged testimony of the estate’s expert witness. For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s final judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
The case stems from a 2013 incident in which a fellow employee allegedly observed Our Lady of Peace's nursing assistant Martin Matthews Martin molesting and raping Gertrude Austin, who was bedridden and non-communicative, according to the Virginia Supreme Court filing. The ruling states that Martin's actions took place "while performing his assigned duties" and "in the course and scope of his employment."
A jury rendered a verdict against Martin and Our Lady of Peace.
Our Lady of Peace filed an appeal on the grounds that the trial court made "erroneous evidentiary rulings regarding the admissibility of expert testimony," the ruling states.
Justices Stephen McCullough and Elizabeth McClanahan wrote in a concurring opinion that they agreed with the majority ruling, McCullough wrote that he questioned whether an employer can be held liable if an employee commits rape.
"Our jurisprudence favors resolution of contested factual matters by juries, but it does not abdicate judicial oversight over claims that have no possible basis in any intelligible conception of the doctrine of respondeat superior," McCullough wrote.
Justices William Mims and Cleo Powell concurred in part and dissented in part.
"Because I believe the trial court properly held Our Lady of Peace to its pleading decisions, and I believe the majority’s articulation of the scope-of-employment analysis continues to unmoor that inquiry from its precedential anchor, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s resolution of the Estate’s respondeat superior claim," Mims wrote.