Olu-Cole ex rel. M.K. v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the employee’s tortious act fell outside the scope of employment because “it was not by any measure ‘actuated’ by a purpose to serve [the employer].”
• stating that N.J.S.A. 2A:61B-1 \creates a civil remedy for failure to prevent the abuse addressed in that statute\
• explaining that foreseeability is critical to scope of employment test
• explaining appellate review is limit to the record presented to the trial court
• finding an employee’s actions outside the scope of employment because there “is no suggestion that in its hiring, training and supervision” the employer “ever tolerated, let alone encouraged,” the act which the employee was accused of committing
• declining to impose a new tort duty \[a]bsent an appropriate record\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).