A Louisiana appeals court ruled that an employer was not vicariously liable for its employee's actions in Torrence v. Lewis, No. 05-CA-72, 2005 WL 1278350 (La. App. May 31, 2005).

 

Dwight Torrence, a Gabriel Properties employee, was standing on a deer blind, directing dump truck traffic at a construction site and issuing receipts. Robert Lewis, a dump truck driver employed by Jones Bros. Enterprises, entered the site and took a short cut to dump his load. Torrence told him not to use the short cut again or he would not issue a receipt. However, when Lewis returned with another load, he again took the shortcut, and Torrence refused to issue a receipt.

 

Lewis punched Torrence in the face and pushed him off of the deer blind, causing several injuries to Torrence. Torrence sued Lewis, Jones Bros., and Jones's insurer, ABC Insurance Company, alleging that Jones Bros. was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, Lewis.

 

Jones Bros. was granted summary judgment by the lower court, which ruled that Lewis's actions were outside the course of his employment and that nothing suggested that Jones Bros. was negligent in hiring, supervising, or failing to terminate Lewis.

 

On appeal, Torrence asserted that a material issue of fact existed regarding whether Lewis acted in the scope his employment. The court, in a previous decision, had held “that in order for an employer to be vicariously liable for the tortuous acts of its employee the 'tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business, as compared with conduct instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer's interest.'”

 

The court also listed four factors to be considered when determining the course and scope of employment:

 

1. Whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted;

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

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

4. Whether it occurred during the hours of employment.

 

The court agreed with the trial court's assessment that the violence against Torrence was not reasonably incidental to Lewis's job duties and that Jones Bros. could not envision such acts as being reasonably incidental to Lewis's job duties. Thus, the court found that Jones Bros. was not vicariously liable for Lewis's violent actions.