LeBrane v. Lewis - 292 So. 2d 216 (La. 1974)

Rule:

Where the tortious conduct of an employee is so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment-duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer's interests, it can be regarded as within the scope of the employee's employment, so that his employer is liable in tort to third persons injured thereby.

Facts:

Charles LeBrane, then 17, was employed as a kitchen helper for the Capitol House Hotel. His immediate supervisor was James Lewis, the kitchen steward. On the day of the incident, LeBrane arrived late for work. Lewis told him to take the rest of the day off. Subsequently, a heated and profane argument ensued between the parties, which resulted in Lewis stabbing Lebrane on the employment premises. LeBrane instituted an action against Lewis and the employer. The lower courts held that the employer was not liable in tort for the act of its supervisor. Certiorari was granted. 

Issue:

Pursuant to the respondeat superior doctrine, could the employer be held liable in tort for the act of its supervisor?  

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that at least insofar as discharging the injured employee and ordering him off the premises, the supervisor was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The dispute, which erupted into violence, was primarily employment-rooted. The fight was reasonably incidental to the performance of the supervisor's duties in connection with firing the recalcitrant employee and causing him to leave the place of employment. It occurred on the employment premises and during the hours of employment. In short, the supervisor's tortious conduct was so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to have been regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer's interests. It could thus have been regarded as within the scope of the supervisor's employment, so that his employer was liable in tort to third persons injured thereby.