168 So. 3d 501
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Deputy Boutan of the Sheriffs Office contracted for and coordinated an extra-duty security detail at Motel 6 in Port Allen; deputies wore uniforms and carried weapons while on the detail, and Motel 6 supplied only radios and a security checklist without training.
- Motel 6 did not direct arrests or training; deputies controlled the order and timing of the security checklist during shifts.
- Before the July 31, 2009 shift, Boutan confronted a pool guest (Ruffin) about guests in two rooms, informed him he had 30 minutes to vacate, and did not receive arrest directions from Motel 6 management.
- Butler arrived, questioned Boutan, and after a verbal confrontation, Boutan used pepper spray and arrested both Butler and Ruffin; backup was called and they were placed in Boutan’s patrol car; charges were later dismissed.
- Ruffin, Butler, Butler’s wife, and two minor children sued Motel 6 and Boutan for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking vicarious liability for Motel 6.
- The trial court granted Motel 6 summary judgment, holding Boutan was an independent contractor; plaintiffs appealed arguing Motel 6 controlled the deputy’s duties and schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Motel 6 may be vicariously liable for Boutan’s actions. | Buttan’s shifts and duties were directed by Motel 6; management set hours and duties. | Boutan acted as an independent contractor; Motel 6 had no control over his law-enforcement actions. | No; Motel 6 was not vicariously liable; Boutan was an independent contractor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Triplette v. Exxon Corp., 554 So.2d 1361 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1989) (employer not liable for independent contractor absent control over activity)
- Davis v. State Farm, Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 636 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1990) (employer control is central to employee determination)
- Huckman v. Southern Pacific Transport Co., 262 La. 102, 262 So.2d 385 (1972) (factors for independent contractor vs. employee)
- Hulbert v. Democratic State Central Committee of Louisiana, 68 So.3d 667 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2011) (totality of circumstances; right to control is key)
- Sasser v. Wintz, 102 So.3d 842 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2012) (right to control over work delineates independent contractor status)
- Roca v. Security Nat. Properties-Louisiana Ltd. Partnership, 102 So.3d 778 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2012) (case-by-case analysis of employment relationship)