Sim LeBrane v. James Lewis et al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
292 So.2d 216 (1974)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's intentional tort when the tortious conduct is so closely connected in time, place, and causation to the employee's employment duties that it is a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business.

Facts:

Charles LeBrane, a 17-year-old kitchen helper at the Capitol House Hotel, arrived late for work.
His immediate supervisor, James Lewis, instructed LeBrane to take the day off and get a haircut.
LeBrane refused to leave the premises despite several warnings from Lewis.
Lewis, who had the authority to hire and fire, then terminated LeBrane's employment.
Lewis had LeBrane sign a termination slip and attempted to take him to the hotel manager's office for his final pay.
When the manager was not present, Lewis and LeBrane rode an elevator down together, during which a heated and profane argument ensued.
The argument escalated into a physical fight on the hotel's basement loading premises.
During the fight, Lewis stabbed LeBrane.

Procedural Posture:

Sim LeBrane, on behalf of his minor son Charles LeBrane, filed a tort action in a Louisiana trial court against James Lewis, his employer Jack Tar Management Company, and others.
The trial court found Lewis personally liable for stabbing LeBrane but dismissed the claims against the employer, ruling that Lewis was not acting within the scope of his employment.
LeBrane (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the dismissal of the claims against the employer to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the fight had become a purely personal matter and was therefore outside the scope of employment.
LeBrane (plaintiff-applicant) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari to review the issue of the employer's liability.

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 liable for an intentional tort committed by a supervisor against a recently discharged employee when the altercation is employment-rooted, occurs on the employer's premises, and arises immediately out of the supervisor's performance of his duties?

Opinions:

Majority - Tate, Justice

Yes, an employer is liable under these circumstances. The supervisor's tortious conduct was within the scope of his employment because the dispute was primarily employment-rooted and the resulting fight was reasonably incidental to the supervisor's duties of firing the employee and ensuring he left the premises. The lower court erred in concluding the altercation became a 'purely personal matter.' The court reasoned that the supervisor's conduct was so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties that it constituted a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business. The actions of terminating a recalcitrant employee and removing him from the premises are functions of the supervisor's job, and the violence that erupted was a direct consequence of performing those functions. Therefore, the employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Analysis:

This decision expands the scope of employer liability for intentional torts committed by employees in Louisiana. It shifts the analysis from a narrow focus on whether the employee's act served the employer's interests to a broader inquiry into whether the tort was a foreseeable risk of the business. By finding that an employment-rooted dispute leading to violence is 'fairly attributable' to the employer, the court aligns the test for vicarious liability in tort more closely with the liberal 'arising out of and in the course of employment' standard used in workers' compensation law. This precedent makes it more difficult for employers to escape liability by arguing that an employee's violent act was a 'purely personal' matter when the conflict originated in the workplace.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sim LeBrane v. James Lewis et al. (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature