Michaleski v. Western Preferred Cas. Co.
472 So. 2d 18, 1985 La. LEXIS 9192 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee working a multi-day shift at a remote worksite is acting within the course and scope of employment when involved in an accident while returning from a necessary trip to obtain food, especially when the employer provides lodging and a per diem allowance for such expenses.
Facts:
- Ricky Paul Leger was employed by NL Industries, Inc. and Amoco Production Company as a motorman at a remote oil well workover site.
- Leger's schedule was 'seven days on—seven days off', consisting of twelve-hour shifts from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
- The employers provided a trailer on-site for the crew to live in during their seven-day work period.
- Leger received a daily per diem allowance from his employers to cover the cost of food and gasoline, as no food was available at the rig site.
- On August 15, 1981, after his shift ended, Leger and a co-worker drove his personal car five or six miles to a McDonald's in Denham Springs for dinner.
- While returning to the rig site from McDonald's, Leger, who was exhausted from his shift, was involved in a head-on collision with a vehicle driven by Steven W. Michaleski.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven W. Michaleski and Sherri Michaleski filed a tort action against Ricky Paul Leger, his employers (NL Industries, Inc. and Amoco Production Company), and various insurers in a Louisiana trial court.
- The defendant employers and insurers moved for summary judgment, arguing that Leger was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants.
- The plaintiffs (Michaleskis) appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment for the employers but reversed the judgment as to the insurance companies and remanded.
- The plaintiffs (Michaleskis) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's judgment.
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 the ground that its employee was not in the course and scope of employment when the employee, working a 'seven-on, seven-off' shift at a remote site with employer-provided lodging and a per diem, is in an accident while returning from a necessary trip to get food?
Opinions:
Majority - Watson, J.
No. An employer is not entitled to summary judgment because an employee in this situation is acting within the course and scope of employment. The court reasoned that the trip for food was not a purely personal mission but was 'necessitated by the employment' due to the remote location and the structure of the work schedule. The employer anticipated and compensated for such trips by providing a per diem for food and gasoline. Because Leger was on a 'seven days on' schedule, he was effectively at work for the entire period. Therefore, the journey was an activity arising from the nature of the employment, and the risk of harm from an exhausted employee was a foreseeable consequence reasonably attributable to the employer's business.
Concurring - Marcus, J.
No. Summary judgment is inappropriate in this case. The question of whether Leger was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident presents a genuine issue of material fact that should be decided by a trier of fact, not by a judge as a matter of law.
Concurring - Blanche, J.
No. While summary judgment is inappropriate, the majority's reasoning is questionable. This author agrees with the lower courts that the trip to McDonald's should be characterized as a personal errand that did not benefit the employer and was not employment-related. However, the determination of whether the conduct was so closely connected to employment as to be a risk fairly attributable to the employer's business should not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the doctrine of vicarious liability for employers whose business requires employees to live at or near remote worksites for extended periods. By classifying a necessary, off-shift errand for food as within the course and scope of employment, the court blurred the traditional line between work time and personal time. This precedent makes it more difficult for employers in industries like oil and gas to escape liability for employee torts committed during such 'off-duty' periods, linking liability to the unique living and working conditions the employer creates. The ruling discourages the granting of summary judgment in similar factual scenarios, favoring resolution by a trier of fact.
