189 So. 3d 450
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Towana Carr, an employee at Sanderson Farms, alleges co-worker Kevin Webb intentionally struck her twice with a pallet jack while both were at work, causing injury.
- Carr claims Webb had previously threatened her off premises, she informed supervisors, and they took no action; she sued Webb and Sanderson Farms for assault/battery (vicarious liability) and negligence.
- Sanderson Farms filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action, arguing (1) workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for employer negligence and (2) employer not vicariously liable because Webb’s intentional act was outside the scope of employment.
- The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed Carr’s claims against Sanderson Farms with prejudice.
- On appeal, the court analyzed (a) vicarious liability under the LeBrane/Baumeister factors and found Carr’s petition lacked factual allegations that the act was employment-rooted or incidental to duties; and (b) negligence, concluding Carr’s bare allegation that she reported threats was insufficient to establish foreseeability and thus no duty was pled.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal on the merits but reversed the dismissal with prejudice and remanded, allowing Carr leave to amend her petition under La. C.C.P. art. 934.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vicarious liability for Webb’s intentional assault | Webb’s act was "primarily employment rooted" and incidental to duties; employer therefore vicariously liable under La. C.C. art. 2320 and LeBrane | Webb’s conduct was personal/independent of job duties and not within scope of employment, so Sanderson Farms not vicariously liable | Petition lacked factual allegations showing the act was employment-rooted or incidental to duties; dismissal proper as to vicarious liability but plaintiff may amend |
| Negligence for failing to protect after threats reported | Sanderson Farms negligently failed to heed Carr’s warnings and take steps to prevent harm | Employer owed no duty because threats occurred off premises and petition fails to show foreseeability of an on-premises attack | Allegation that threats were reported is too bare to establish foreseeability or a duty; negligence claim dismissed but amendment allowed |
| Remedy/exclusivity (workers’ compensation) | Injury excluded from workers’ comp because WC claim was dismissed as arising from a non-work-related dispute | Employer argued exclusivity bars tort claims | Record showed WC claim was dismissed as non-work-related, so exclusivity did not bar tort claims; court considered tort theories on merits |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiff sought to proceed on alleged theories | Defendant sought dismissal with prejudice | Court reversed dismissal with prejudice and remanded to permit amendment under La. C.C.P. art. 934 |
Key Cases Cited
- LeBrane v. Lewis, 292 So.2d 216 (La. 1974) (establishes framework for imposing vicarious liability for employee intentional torts)
- Baumeister v. Plunkett, 673 So.2d 994 (La. 1996) (scope-of-employment test: intentional acts must be closely connected to employment duties)
- Ramey v. DeCaire, 869 So.2d 114 (La. 2004) (pleading standards: conclusions without factual support insufficient to state a cause of action)
- Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 752 So.2d 762 (La. 1999) (foreseeability and gravity of harm inform existence and scope of duty)
- O’Regan v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc., 758 So.2d 124 (La. 2000) (when injury is excluded from workers’ compensation, exclusivity does not bar tort suits)