James v. J. S. Williams & Son, Inc.
177 La. 1033, 1933 La. LEXIS 1791, 150 So. 9 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not liable for an employee's negligent acts when the employee takes the employer's vehicle for a purely personal and unauthorized mission, as the employer-employee relationship is suspended for the entire duration of the trip, including the return journey.
Facts:
- J. S. Williams & Son, an undertaking establishment, employed Roy Rhodes as a driver for its funeral car.
- Rhodes's employment authorized him to drive the vehicle only for company business as directed by his employer.
- After the workday concluded on February 23, Rhodes, at the request of a co-worker named Jemison, used the company's funeral car to drive Jemison home.
- Rhodes undertook this trip without the knowledge or consent, either express or implied, of his employer, J. S. Williams & Son.
- After dropping Jemison off at his home, Rhodes began driving back to the defendant's garage to store the car.
- While on this return trip, Rhodes negligently struck and seriously injured Neita James with the vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Neita James sued J. S. Williams & Son in the district court (trial court) for damages.
- The trial judge found in favor of the defendant, holding that the driver was on a personal mission and not acting within the scope of his employment.
- Neita James, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of the appellee, J. S. Williams & Son.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior reattach when an employee, who took the employer's vehicle for a completely unauthorized personal mission, is returning the vehicle to the employer's premises at the time of a negligent act?
Opinions:
Majority - Odom, Justice
No, an employer's liability does not reattach during the return portion of a wholly unauthorized trip. An employee is only considered an agent of the employer while performing acts directed by the employer or those reasonably incidental to the employment. When an employee completely departs from the scope of employment for a personal mission, the master-servant relationship is suspended for the entire duration of that mission. The court reasoned that if the outgoing trip is unauthorized, the return trip is merely a continuation of that same unauthorized journey and does not constitute a re-entry into the scope of employment. The general duty to return property that was unlawfully taken does not arise from the employment relationship itself and therefore cannot be the basis for re-establishing the employer's liability.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between a minor deviation from employment (a 'detour') and a complete abandonment of it (a 'frolic'). It establishes that for a frolic, the employer's liability does not resume merely because the employee begins the return trip. By defining the entire unauthorized mission, from departure to return, as outside the scope of employment, the court prevents a significant expansion of vicarious liability. This precedent requires future courts to analyze the purpose of the trip at its inception to determine liability, rather than focusing solely on the employee's activity at the moment of the tort.
