215 So. 3d 437
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Towana Carr sued co-worker Kevin Webb and employer Sanderson Farms after Webb allegedly struck her twice with a pallet jack at work following prior threats.
- Webb had a documented history of violent conduct (including workplace and domestic incidents) known to Sanderson Farms, including a fight on the premises about one month earlier and prior arrests.
- Carr reported a post-domestic-incident threat by Webb to her supervisor and shift manager, expressing fear; management allegedly took no protective action.
- Carr amended her petition after a prior appeal to add facts about Webb’s violent history and Sanderson Farms’ knowledge; Sanderson Farms moved again under the peremptory exception of no cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed Carr’s claims with prejudice; the court of appeal reversed and remanded, finding Carr’s amended petition sufficiently alleged employer negligence (not barred by workers’ comp).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carr stated a negligence cause of action against employer | Carr alleged Sanderson Farms knew or should have known of Webb’s violent propensities and failed to protect her after she reported a specific threat | Sanderson Farms argued petition lacked facts showing foreseeability (e.g., did not allege threat would occur at work) and thus no duty to act | Reversed: allegations of known violent history, a contemporaneous threat, report to supervisors, and no employer action were sufficient to state negligence |
| Whether workers’ compensation barred Carr’s negligence claim | Carr contended the assault arose from a non-work-related dispute (domestic matter), so WC immunity does not apply | Sanderson Farms implied the injury related to employment and WC could bar the claim | Held: facts alleged show the assault arose from a dispute unrelated to employment, so WC immunity did not bar the negligence claim |
| Whether petition sufficiently alleged foreseeability to impose employer duty | Carr argued the prior workplace fight, criminal history, and reported threat made Webb’s conduct foreseeable | Sanderson Farms argued the petition lacked detail on timing/content of threats to establish foreseeability | Held: the amended petition’s added specifics (prior incidents, in-person threat, report to supervisors, same shift/proximity) suffice to plead foreseeability |
| Whether court needed to decide vicarious liability under La. C.C. art. 2320 | Carr pleaded vicarious liability as alternative theory | Sanderson Farms opposed exposure under respondeat superior for intentional act | Held: court declined to decide vicarious-liability question because negligence claim alone sufficed to defeat the exception; left for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Naquin v. Bollinger Shipyards, 147 So.3d 207 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (peremptory exception of no cause of action tests pleading sufficiency)
- Paulsell v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 112 So.3d 856 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2012) (definition of cause of action; exception triable on petition face)
- Reynolds v. Bordelon, 172 So.3d 589 (La. 2015) (accept well-pleaded facts as true on exception)
- Ramey v. DeCaire, 869 So.2d 114 (La. 2004) (burden on mover of exception to show petition fails to state cause of action)
- Scheffler v. Adams & Reese, LLP, 950 So.2d 641 (La. 2007) (de novo review of exception of no cause of action)
- Holliday v. State ex rel. Office of Fin. Assistance, 747 So.2d 755 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1999) (workers’ comp immunity inapplicable when injury arises from dispute unrelated to employment)
- Mundy v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 620 So.2d 811 (La. 1993) (employer duty to exercise reasonable care for employee safety)
- Martin v. Bigner, 665 So.2d 709 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1995) (employer obligation to protect employees from known dangerous person/condition)
- Carr v. Sanderson Farm, Inc., 189 So.3d 450 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2016) (prior appellate decision addressing pleading deficiencies)
- La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. La. State Legislature, 117 So.3d 532 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2013) (if any ground states a cause of action, no-cause objection must be overruled)