Brown v. Martin
2010 La.App. 4 Cir. 0799, 2010 La. App. LEXIS 1711, 53 So.3d 643 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's use of deadly force when the employee's action was a justified act of self-defense. The defense is established when the employee reasonably believed they were threatened with serious bodily harm, and this issue may be decided on summary judgment if the facts are not in genuine dispute.
Facts:
- After a night out, Kyle Brown and two friends returned to his car in a lot operated by Central Parking System of Louisiana, Inc.
- Brown became involved in a dispute with the occupants of a red truck who were driving aggressively and taunting him.
- In response, Brown retrieved a handgun from under his car seat, took off his shirt despite the cold weather, and moved towards the truck.
- Deputy Taraunce Charles Martin, an off-duty deputy working a private security detail for Central Parking, was alerted that a man was in the lot with a gun.
- Martin approached Brown and unsuccessfully attempted to de-escalate the situation, instructing Brown to get in his car and leave.
- Brown then drew his weapon, pointed it at the ground, and shouted expletives.
- Martin drew his own gun and repeatedly commanded Brown to drop the weapon, which Brown ignored.
- Brown then pointed his gun at Martin and stated, “Well, f... it, I’ll kill you.”
- In response to the direct threat, Deputy Martin fired several shots, striking Brown multiple times.
Procedural Posture:
- Kyle Brown was criminally charged and subsequently convicted of aggravated battery of a peace officer with a firearm in a separate proceeding.
- His criminal conviction was affirmed by the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- Brown then filed this civil tort suit in a Louisiana trial court against Deputy Martin, Central Parking, and the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff.
- Central Parking filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it could not be held vicariously liable because Deputy Martin acted in self-defense.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Central Parking, dismissing it from the lawsuit.
- Brown's subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Brown (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, with Central Parking as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an employer entitled to summary judgment on a vicarious liability claim when its employee, acting as a security guard, used deadly force against a patron who aimed a gun at the employee and threatened to kill him?
Opinions:
Majority - Patricia Rivet Murray, Judge.
No. An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's use of deadly force where the employee was acting in justifiable self-defense. The court affirmed summary judgment for Central Parking because the undisputed facts demonstrated that its employee, Deputy Martin, reasonably believed he was threatened with serious bodily harm. The evidence showed that Kyle Brown engaged in an overt hostile act by aiming a gun at Deputy Martin and made a direct verbal threat to kill him. These actions justified the use of deadly force under the established multi-factor test for self-defense. Although Brown alleged that Martin used excessive force by continuing to shoot after he was on the ground, he failed to produce any specific evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to rebut the testimony of all witnesses who stated the shooting stopped once Brown fell.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that a valid claim of self-defense by an employee serves as a complete defense for an employer against a claim of vicarious liability. The case illustrates that while self-defense is typically a fact-intensive question for a jury, summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence so clearly supports the defense that no reasonable person could disagree. The ruling also highlights the burden on a non-moving party to present specific factual evidence to defeat a summary judgment motion, as mere allegations or speculation are insufficient. This precedent strengthens the position of employers whose employees must use force in the line of duty, provided that force is legally justified.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Martin