Wayne Cooper v. Sea West Mechanical, Inc.
219 So. 3d 550
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 7, 2014 Mary Horton Cooper was struck and killed after stopping her vehicle on Highway 84; Zachary Savoie was the driver who struck her.
- Cooper’s wrongful-death beneficiaries sued Savoie, Savoie’s mother (Fleisha Sanford), and Savoie’s employer Sea West Mechanical, Inc.; plaintiffs later settled with Savoie and appeal concerns summary judgment in favor of Sea West.
- Savoie had been employed by Sea West since Dec. 2013 and passed a preemployment drug screen that checked for six substances.
- Savoie admitted recent marijuana and nitrous-oxide use; post-accident blood testing showed marijuana, but no expert linked levels to impairment.
- Sea West’s owner testified the company had a drug policy, showed it to new hires, observed employees at work, and had no reason to suspect Savoie was impaired on the job.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Sea West on the ground Sea West was not vicariously liable because Savoie was off-duty, on unpaid lunch, in his personal vehicle, and not acting in furtherance of employer’s business.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sea West is vicariously liable for Savoie under respondeat superior | Savoie’s conduct (driving while under influence) should be imputed to Sea West | Savoie was off the clock, on unpaid lunch in his personal vehicle and not acting for employer | Court: No vicarious liability — Savoie was outside course and scope of employment |
| Whether Sea West’s drug testing/policies or alleged failures created proximate cause | Sea West inadequately screened/should have known about Savoie’s drug use, creating negligence-based liability | Sea West followed its drug policy, had no knowledge or reason to suspect impairment, and no evidence ties test results to impairment at time of crash | Court: No proximate causal connection and no evidence Sea West knew or should have known of impairment |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist to defeat summary judgment | Plaintiffs contend factual disputes (knowledge, testing adequacy) preclude summary judgment | Sea West contends record is undisputed on off-duty status and lack of employer knowledge; plaintiffs offered no controlling expert or evidence of employer notice | Court: No genuine factual dispute sufficient to overcome summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Karpinsky v. Am. Nat’l Ins., 109 So. 3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (summary-judgment de novo review and burden principles)
- Thomas v. Cook, 170 So. 3d 1254 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (respondeat superior applies where employee acts in course and scope of employment)
- Holliday v. Pizza Inn Inc., 659 So. 2d 860 (Miss. 1995) (scope-of-employment test: act in furtherance of employer’s business)
- Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Laney, 154 So. 2d 128 (Miss. 1963) (authority on employer liability for employee acts)