In Albert v. Farm Bur. Ins. Co., No. CA 05-352, 2005 WL 2864786 (La. App. Nov. 2, 2005), a Louisiana appeals court found that an employee's actions occurred within the scope of his employment.

 

Charles Albert and Carl Broussard, deputies with the Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office, attended a defensive tactics training course. Before class began, Albert and Broussard practiced one of the maneuvers, and Albert was injured.

 

Albert sued Broussard and his homeowners insurer, Farm Bureau. The sheriff was also named as a defendant, and Albert alleged he was vicariously liable for Broussard's actions.

 

The appeals court determined that the homeowners policy's business pursuits exclusion applied because both deputies were acting in the course of their employment. The trial court, however, found that the sheriff was not vicariously liable because Broussard was not acting within the scope of his employment. Albert appealed.

 

The court said that the standard for an employer being vicariously liable for damages caused by their employees is “when the damage is caused 'in the exercise of the functions in which [the employees] are employed,” or, in other words, when the employees are acting within the scope of their employment.

 

The court listed four criteria for determining if an employee is acting within the scope of his employment:

 

1. The wrongful act was primarily employment rooted;

2. The violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties;

3. The act occurred on the employer's premises; and

4. It occurred during the hours of employment.

 

Broussard's actions met the criteria, the court determined. Because he was required to attend the training class, the actions were employment rooted. Because the sole purpose of attending the training class was to learn maneuvers such as the one that injured Albert, the violence was incidental to the performance of Broussard's duties. Because the injury occurred on property rented by the sheriff's office for the training session, the act occurred on the employer's premises. And, because the Broussard was required to be at the training class for his job and he had already arrived at the premises, the act occurred during the hours of employment.

 

Thus, the court found that the sheriff was vicariously liable for Broussard's actions.