Patricia Cannady v. St…

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment for St. Vincent on vicarious-liability grounds because its employees acted for personal reasons, contrary to hospital policy and training, and outside the scope of their employment. It held that the law-of-the-case doctrine did not bar St. Vincent from raising that argument after the record was more fully developed. The court dismissed the cross-appeal because the denial of summary judgment on the outrage claim was an interlocutory ruling that did not adjudicate the claim or prevent a later judgment. Justice Hart, dissenting, would have reviewed the cross-appeal, held that the outrage claim failed as a matter of law, and found a factual issue concerning the adequacy of St. Vincent's policies.