Bagent v. Blessing Care Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 154

862 N.E.2d 985 (2007) · Supreme Court of Illinois · January 19, 2007 · No. No. 102430

Summary

The Illinois Supreme Court considered whether a hospital could be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for an employee's off-duty disclosure of a patient's confidential medical information. Applying the three criteria under section 228 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency, the court held that the employee's disclosure was not within the scope of employment because it was not conduct she was employed to perform and was not motivated by a purpose to serve the hospital. The court reversed the appellate court and upheld summary judgment for the hospital.

Holdings

  1. All three criteria of section 228 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency must be met for an employee to have acted within the scope of employment: the conduct must be of the kind the employee was employed to perform, occur substantially within authorized time and space limits, and be actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer.
  2. Young's disclosure of Bagent's medical information at a tavern was not conduct of the kind she was employed to perform and was not incidental to her employment.
  3. Young's disclosure was not actuated, even in part, by a purpose to serve Illini Hospital; her motivation was solely personal.
  4. Summary judgment for Illini Hospital was proper because the undisputed evidence would not permit a reasonable jury to find that Young acted within the scope of her employment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an employer may be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for an employee's unauthorized disclosure of confidential patient information when the employee was off duty, acting for personal reasons, and not performing conduct of the kind she was employed to perform.
  2. Whether summary judgment for the employer was proper where the undisputed evidence established that the employee's conduct was not actuated, even in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.
  3. Whether all three criteria identified in section 228 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency must be satisfied for an employee's conduct to fall within the scope of employment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (18)

  • Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32, 42-43, 284 Ill. Dec. 302, 809 N.E.2d 1248 (2004)(followed)
  • Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. 2d 511, 517, 190 Ill. Dec. 758, 622 N.E.2d 788 (1993)(followed)
  • Governmental Interinsurance Exchange v. Judge, 221 Ill. 2d 195, 215, 302 Ill. Dec. 746, 850 N.E.2d 183 (2006)(followed)
  • Espinoza v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co., 165 Ill. 2d 107, 113-14, 208 Ill. Dec. 662, 649 N.E.2d 1323 (1995)(followed)
  • Darner v. Colby, 375 Ill. 558, 560, 31 N.E.2d 950 (1941)(followed)
  • Metzler v. Layton, 373 Ill. 88, 91, 25 N.E.2d 60 (1939)(followed)
  • Wright v. City of Danville, 174 Ill. 2d 391, 405, 221 Ill. Dec. 203, 675 N.E.2d 110 (1996)(followed)
  • Pyne v. Witmer, 129 Ill. 2d 351, 359-60, 135 Ill. Dec. 557, 543 N.E.2d 1304 (1989)(followed)
  • Mitchell v. Norman James Construction Co., 291 Ill. App. 3d 927, 932, 225 Ill. Dec. 881, 684 N.E.2d 872 (1997)(followed)
  • Randi F. v. High Ridge YMCA, 170 Ill. App. 3d 962, 964, 120 Ill. Dec. 784, 524 N.E.2d 966 (1988)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Illinois Supreme Court