employer Tagged Articles

The 1^st Circuit Court of Appeal recently ruled that a Plaintiff is prohibited from maintaining a direct negligence claim (negligent hire, negligent supervision, etc.) against an employer when the defendant/employer admits the employee was in the course and scope of the employment, stating:

“(A) plaintiff cannot maintain a direct negligence claim, such as negligent hiring, training, supervision, etc., against an employer, while simultaneously maintaining a claim against the negligent employee for which the plaintiff seeks to hold the employer vicariously liable, after the employer had admitted that the employee was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the alleged conduct.” See Elee v. White, – – So. 3d – – (La. App. 1 Cir 7/24/20) 2020 WL 4251974.

The ruling in Elee joins the Louisiana 5^th Circuit court of appeal which entered a similar ruling. See Landry v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, 289 So.3d 177 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/19).

Meanwhile, the federal courts in Louisiana, under the Erie doctrine, reached differing results. In Thomas v. Chambers, 2019 WL 1670745 (E.D. La. 2019)(Vance, J.) and Dennis v. Collins, 2016 WL 6637973 (W.D. La. 2016 (Hicks, J.), the District Courts acknowledged the holding outlined above. However, Judge Cain, sitting in the Lake Charles division of the Western District ruled to the contrary. See Roe v. Safety National, 18-cv-1353 (W.D. La. 2020).

But, what happens when the defendants further admit sole fault for the accident? The result was discussed in Ferguson v. Lenoir et al. Notably, Magistrate Judge Hornsby, ruling on defendants’ request for a protective order, found that defendants admission of fault eliminated the need to reconcile the different rulings when it found that “(no) evidence of (employer’s) negligent hiring, training, supervision or entrustment can raise (employer’s) percentage of fault above 100.” See Case 5:17-cv-01570-SMH-MLH Document 90 Filed 06/30/20 (p 2 of 6). As a natural consequence of this rule, the court recognized that a protective order limiting further discovery was appropriate. Plaintiff appealed the magistrate’s Order, but US District Judge Hicks denied Plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed Judge Hornsby’s ruling. Case 5:17-cv-01570-SMH-MLH Document 122 Filed 09/22/20.

John has been practicing over 30 years and is a Senior Partner with firm where he serves on the Management Committee. He has devoted attention to non-profit boards dedicated to assisting at risk children. He enjoys time with his three children and grandchildren. He also enjoys tennis and hiking.

Historians call it “The Grand Bargain.” At its heart, the workers’ compensation law is a bargain, an exchange between the employer and the employee. In this bargain, the employee without having to prove his employer’s negligence receives the benefit of continued income and medical treatment. In return, the employer, even if it is at fault, receives protection from tort suits. However, for this bargain to apply, the accident must have occurred within the “course and scope” of employment. But the question of when an accident is considered to have occurred in the “course and scope” is not always as simple to answer as it might otherwise appear.

The issue of course and scope has been litigated many times, in many forums. The recent decision in Jackie Holden v. Mike’s Catfish Inn, Inc. and Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, 2017 CA 1056 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/27/18) explores course and scope in the context of an employee who was on break.

In Holden, the plaintiff was “clocked in” and on the premises of her employer. When her daughter called and asked to meet her outside, the plaintiff took an employer-sanctioned work break, walked outside, and fell on the steps, causing injury to her left knee. She filed a tort suit against her employer alleging negligence for failing to remove a foreign substance which allegedly caused her to fall. The employer sought to dismiss the suit under the contention that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for the fall was workers’ compensation.

The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by the employer’s workers’ compensation protections and plaintiff appealed. The sole issue before the appellate court was whether the plaintiff was in the course and scope. Plaintiff argued that she was on break and had left her designated work duties to speak with her daughter such that her activities at the time of the fall were not work-related. The employer countered that plaintiff remained on the clock during her break and was on the employer’s premises when she fell.

In assessing course and scope, courts consider the time of the accident, the place where the accident occurred, and the employee’s activities at the time of the accident. “An accident occurs in the course and scope of employment when the employee sustains an injury while actively engaged in the performance of her duties during work hours, either on the employer’s premises or at other places where employment activities take the employee.” Holden at p. 6, citing, McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractors, Inc., 02-1539 (La. 7/2/03), 851 So. 2d 1135.

In ruling against the plaintiff, the Holden court colorfully concluded:

“An employee who is getting paid, is on her employer’s premises, and is on an approved work break is in the course and scope of her employment whether she is visiting her daughter, getting a breath of fresh air, smoking a cigarette, or walking outside to drink a diet coke.”

While workers’ compensation is a bargain, Holden reminds that it is a bargain workers will continue to try to escape.

Virginia “Jenny” McLin is a partner at Keogh Cox who practices in the fields of corporate litigation, insurance defense, and workers’ compensation defense. When she is not practicing law, Jenny can be found volunteering with the Junior League of Baton Rouge; cheering for the LSU Tigers with her husband, Ryan; or shuffling her two kids to and from dance practice.