Prince George’s County
v. Morales, 230 Md. App. 699, 149 A.3d 741 (2016)
In October 2010, the Omega Psi Phi fraternity at the
University of Maryland at College Park held a Halloween party at an off-campus
house. As with so many Halloween parties unfortunately, it ended with a
physical altercation and a lawsuit.
The fraternity hired Prince George’s County Police Officer
Dominique Richardson to provide security at the party. Officer Richardson was
assigned to “light duty” at the time due to his recent knee surgery, thus he
violated a policy that prevented officers on light duty from performing extra
work. An altercation occurred at the Halloween Party in which Officer
Richardson admitted that he punched and restrained the aggressive Plaintiff and
party-goer Steven Morales.
Plaintiff filed a civil suit against Officer Richardson and
Prince George’s County alleging battery, excessive force and vicarious
liability. The jury found that the County was liable for the actions Officer
Richardson under the theory of respondeat
superior, and awarded the Plaintiff $121,141.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment
against the County despite the County’s argument on appeal that Officer
Richardson was acting outside of the scope of his employment due to his light
duty restrictions. The Court disagreed with the County, and based its opinion
on Prince George’s County’s “Extra-Duty Policy,” which permits an off-duty
officer to take police action when circumstances warrant. The Court stated that the crowd at the party
became “agitated” and Morales became “aggressive,” which permits a police
officer to intervene under the “Extra-Duty Policy.” The Court also noted that
Officer Richardson was wearing his PGPD badge next to a marked a police cruiser,
making Officer Richardson identifiable as a police officer. Evidently, the
Court was not concerned with the fact that any other party-goer could have been
dressed as a police officer on the night of a Halloween party.
The Court found that the “Extra-Duty Policy” coupled specifically
with Plaintiff’s aggression, created sufficient evidence for a jury to find
that Officer Richardson was operating within the scope of his duties as the circumstances
warranted police action. Thus, the County was found vicariously liable for the
actions of Officer Richardson and the judgment was affirmed in favor of the
Plaintiff.