Romero v. CLARENDON AMERICA INS. CO.
10 La.App. 3 Cir. 338, 2010 La. App. LEXIS 1795, 54 So.3d 789 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, an employer cannot be held vicariously liable for punitive damages awarded against an employee whose intoxication while driving caused an accident, as punitive damage statutes are strictly construed and target only the conduct of the individual intoxicated driver.
Facts:
- Gregory J. Vidrine was employed as a truck driver for Stanford Truck Lines.
- While acting in the course and scope of his employment, Vidrine drove an eighteen-wheeler and ran through a stop sign, colliding with a vehicle driven by Bonnie Romero.
- Romero was injured in the collision.
- Romero alleged that Vidrine was under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident.
- Following the accident, Stanford requested that Vidrine submit to a post-accident drug and alcohol test.
- Vidrine refused to submit to the test.
- As a result of his refusal, Stanford terminated Vidrine's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Bonnie Romero (Plaintiff) sued Gregory J. Vidrine and his employer, Stanford Truck Lines (Defendants), in a Louisiana trial court for damages from an auto accident.
- Romero amended her petition to seek punitive damages against all defendants under La.Civ.Code art. 2315.4.
- Romero filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages against Stanford and a motion to compel discovery of Stanford's financial records.
- Stanford filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing it could not be held vicariously liable for punitive damages.
- The trial court denied Romero's motions and granted Stanford's cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court certified its ruling as a final judgment, allowing Romero (Plaintiff-Appellant) to appeal the decision to the intermediate court of appeal, where Stanford is 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:
Does Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.4, which authorizes punitive damages against an intoxicated driver, permit the imposition of those punitive damages upon the driver's employer under a theory of vicarious liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooks, J.
No. An employer is not vicariously liable for punitive damages assessed against an employee for driving while intoxicated. Louisiana public policy disfavors punitive damages, and statutes authorizing them must be strictly construed. The plain language of La.Civ.Code art. 2315.4 allows exemplary damages against 'a defendant whose intoxication while operating a motor vehicle was a cause in fact of the resulting injuries,' which the court interprets as targeting only the conduct of the offending intoxicated person. Citing Ross v. Conoco, Inc., the court reasoned that just as co-conspirators are not solidarily liable for punitive damages unless their own conduct falls within the statute, an employer whose conduct is not targeted by the statute cannot be held vicariously liable for them. The purpose of the statute is to punish the specific tortfeasor, and there was no allegation that Stanford contributed to Vidrine's intoxication.
Dissenting - Thibodeaux, Chief Judge
Yes. An employer should be held vicariously liable for punitive damages assessed against its employee. The majority's interpretation renders the doctrine of respondeat superior (vicarious liability) virtually meaningless by limiting an employer's liability to cases where it would be directly liable anyway. The dissent distinguishes this case from those involving solidary liability for co-conspirators, arguing that vicarious liability focuses on who pays for damages once assessed, not on the culpability of the employer. Citing jurisprudence from other Louisiana circuits, the dissent argues that holding employers vicariously liable for punitive damages serves the dual purposes of the statute: deterring employers from hiring or retaining reckless employees and better compensating victims for egregious conduct.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of strict construction for punitive damage statutes in Louisiana, creating a protective shield for employers against vicarious liability for such damages. By distinguishing vicarious liability from solidary liability and focusing on the plain text of the statute, the court narrows the scope of punitive awards to the direct tortfeasor. This holding deepens a split among Louisiana's appellate circuits on this issue, increasing the likelihood of Louisiana Supreme Court intervention to create a uniform statewide rule. For now, it significantly limits the financial exposure of employers whose employees engage in conduct subject to punitive damages, provided the employer is not independently at fault.
