Just Tortin' Around

Just Tortin' Around

Heffernan v. State

2018 VT 47

By Amy Davis

Ms. Heffernan was an inmate at the Chittenden County Correctional Facility (CCCF) in 2013, during which time, Tracy Holliman was employed by the State as a corrections officer at CCCF. After her release in 2015, Heffernan filed a complaint against Holliman alleging inappropriate sexual conduct during her time at CCCF. Heffernan made a slew of allegations, including a violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but did not name the State as a defendant.

Heffernan notified the State of the lawsuit. The State reviewed the complaint and determined that Holliman’s actions were outside the scope of his duties, and therefore, the State was not required to defend Holliman. Holliman basically participated in no part of the lawsuit, and Heffernan won a default judgement, including punitive and compensatory damages.

After the award of damages, Heffernan filed a complaint against the State, alleging that the State was vicariously liable for Holliman’s actions. The State filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The trial court dismissed Heffernan’s claims on the basis that an indemnification obligation arises only when the State defends an employee, in which case it did not, and that the State had sovereign immunity for the claims of assault.

In reviewing decisions on a motion to dismiss, the SCOV reviews de novo under the same standard the trial court would use. The SCOV assumes that any facts in the complaint and any reasonable inferences are true, and any contrary assertions by the defendant are false.

The SCOV notes that Heffernan’s arguments on appeal and the response to the State’s motion to dismiss involve some complex arguments. However, the SCOV’s decision is controlled by the plain language of Vermont’s statutes.

In regards to indemnification, Heffernan agrees, and SCOV affirms that Vermont’s Tort Claims Acts provides for State indemnification of an employee defended pursuant to 3 V.S.A. § 1101(a). But, indemnification is not limited, and does not extend to gross negligence or willful misconduct. Heffernan’s complaint includes allegations that the underlying conduct is sexual assault, which is an act of willful misconduct. The SCOV concludes that even if the Attorney General had defended Holliman, the State would not be obligated to indemnify Holliman for the judgment Heffernan obtained because the act was one of willful misconduct.

Heffernan’s vicarious liability claim fails as well. The State is general liable for injury to persons caused by the negligent or wrongful act of an employee of the State while acting within the scope of employment. This is limited and does not include claims of alleged assault or battery. Because Heffernan complains of “common law assault and battery,” the vicarious liability claim fails too.

This is enough for the SCOV to affirm the dismissal from the trial court.