Insights

Deutsch Kerrigan Article /

Newsflash for companies sued in Louisiana for negligence of an employee: Oral arguments scheduled next month

February 18, 2022

Sloan L. Abernathy

share this page

Take a commercial auto injury case where a plaintiff seeks to recover from a trucker’s employer under dual theories of liability: 1) vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior[1] for the employee-driver’s negligent operation of a commercial truck, and 2) direct liability for the employer’s independent negligence in hiring, training and supervising its employee.  The majority position that has developed among Louisiana federal and intermediate appellate courts is to grant partial summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims for “negligent hiring, training, supervision and entrustment” if the employer has stipulated its employee was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the underlying accident or unintentional tort.[2]  This has allowed employers to prevent, or at least significantly limit, plaintiffs’ attempts to seek discovery of alleged “company negligence,” such as voluminous requests for information and documents concerning internal safety protocols, training procedures and compliance with complex regulatory schemes.

The underlying rationale is twofold.  One, any negligence that may be allocated to the defendant-employee automatically will be imputed to the employer pursuant to the employer’s stipulation to vicarious liability.  Conversely, if the trier-of-fact finds the plaintiff’s damages did not result from negligence of the defendant-employee, there is no basis to recover from the employer for negligently hiring, training or supervising that employee.[3]  Two, dismissal of the direct negligence claims does not undermine Louisiana’s system of comparative fault because there is no need to allocate fault between an employer and employee when the employer admits it is vicariously liable for the full extent of any liability that may be found against its employee.[4]   

This past December, a seven-judge panel of the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously granted a plaintiff’s writ application on this issue in Martin v. Thomas,No. 54,009 (La. App. 2 Cir. 08/11/2021), writ granted No. 2021-01490 (La. 12/21/21).  With oral arguments scheduled for March 21, 2022, the Court in Martinwill address whether a logging company, which stipulated to vicarious liability for potential negligence of its driver, properly was granted partial summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims for “negligent hiring, training, supervision, and entrustment.” It is unclear what prompted the Court to take up the issue in Martin, after having declined to do so just a year earlier in Elee v. White, where a panel comprised of five of the same judges unanimously denied a writ application on the same issue. 2019-1633 (La. App. 1 Cir 07/24/20), 2020 La. App. LEXIS 1115, writ denied 2020-01048 (La. 11/10/20), 303 So. 3d 1038.

In predicting the result of Martin, three potential outcomes can be surmised.  One, the Court could agree with the majority view whereby direct negligence claims are subject to dismissal if the employer stipulates its employee was in the course and scope of employment, regardless of whether there is an additional stipulation that the employee was at fault.[5]  Two, the Court could opine dismissal requires stipulations to both vicarious liability and fault of the employee.[6]  Three, the Court could adopt the minority view held by one division of Louisiana’s Western District federal court that finds an employer’s stipulation to vicarious liability does not justify dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims for negligent hiring, training, supervision and entrustment.[7]

It is worth keeping an eye on Martin.  A decision adopting the minority view could open the door to extensive discovery into evidence of purported “company negligence,” which can have the effect of enflaming jurors depending on the extent to which the employer did not maintain internal safety protocols or failed to comply with dense regulatory schemes.  On the bright side, a decision adopting the majority view will further solidify an employer’s ability to dismiss direct negligence claims and thereby limit its obligation to respond to voluminous and tedious discovery requests concerning the employer’s internal practices, protocols and procedures.

[1] In Louisiana, the doctrine of respondeat superior, whereby an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts and omissions of an employee while in the course and scope of employment,is codified in Louisiana Civil Code Article 2320.

[2] See, e.g., Spiker v. Salter, No. 3:20-CV-00517, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235420, at *6-7 (W.D. La. Dec. 8, 2021); Motes v. Knight Specialty Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41124, at *2 (M.D. La. Mar. 4, 2021); Rivera v. Robinson, No. 18-14005, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174585, 2020 WL 5658899 (E.D. La. Sept. 23, 2020); Elee v. White, 2019-1633 (La. App. 1 Cir. 07/24/20); 2020 La. App. LEXIS 1115; Vaughn v. Taylor, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5251, 2019 WL 171697 (January 10, 2019); see also Libersat v. J & K Trucking, Inc., 772 So. 2d 173 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/11/2000) (refusing to adopt jury instruction that would allow jury to consider negligent supervision, training or hiring by employer because employer had stipulated to its vicarious liability).

[3] E.g., Giles v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.,No. CV 18-6090, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106839, 2019 WL 2617170, at *2 (E.D. La. June 26, 2019)

[4] E.g., Spiker v. Salter, No. 3:20-CV-00517, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235420, at *6-7 (W.D. La. Dec. 8, 2021)

[5] Motes v. Knight Specialty Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41124, at *2 (M.D. La. Mar. 4, 2021); Allen v. Royal Trucking Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188066, at *2 (W.D. La. Oct. 8, 2020); Rivera v. Robinson, No. 18-14005, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174585, 2020 WL 5658899 (E.D. La. Sept. 23, 2020); Dennis v. Collins, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155724, at *21 (W.D. La. Nov. 9, 2016); Wright v. National Interstate Insurance Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184182, 2017 WL 5157537 (E.D. La. November 7, 2017); Wilcox v. Harco Int'l. Ins., No. 16-187, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97950, 2017 WL 2772088 (M.D. La. June 26, 2017); Pigott v. Heath, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18646, 2020 WL 564958, at *4 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2020); Giles v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106839, 2019 WL 2617170, at *3 (E.D. La. Jun. 26, 2019); Franco v. Mabe Trucking Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198263, at *3 (W.D. La. Nov. 20, 2018); Thomas v. Chambers, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65900, at *21 (E.D. La. Apr. 17, 2019); Zinamon v. STR Transp., Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34840, at *8 (M.D. La. Feb. 24, 2021); Meyer v. Jencks, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202623, at *7 (E.D. La. Oct. 30, 2020); Elee v. White, 2019-1633 (La. App. 1 Cir. 07/24/20); 2020 La. App. LEXIS 1115; Wheeler v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 18-1422 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/13/19), 2019 La. App. LEXIS 1131, 2019 WL 2612903; Brandon v. Richard, 2020-0738 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/26/20); 2020 La. App. LEXIS 1535; see also Libersat, supra, at Note 2. 

[6] Rodrigue v. Nat'l Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56734, at *9 (E.D. La. Mar. 25, 2021) (holding minority view did not apply because defendant stipulated its employee was at fault for accident, in addition to stipulating to its vicarious liability); Landry v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 19-337 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/19); 289 So. 3d 177, 184; Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115753, at *3 (W.D. La. June 30, 2020)

[7] Gordon v. Great W. Cas. Co., No. 18-00967, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112281, 2020 WL 3472634, at **4-5 (W.D. La. June 25, 2020);Roe v. Safety Nat'l Casualty Corp. et al, No. 18-01353, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112156, 2020 WL 3477071 (W.D. La June 25, 2020); Fox v. Nu Line Transport LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136738, 2020 WL 4432869 (W.D. La. 07/31/20); see also Zinamon v. STR Transp., Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34840, at *8 (M.D. La. Feb. 24, 2021) (calling Gordon v. Great W. Cas. Co.an “outlier decision”)

Firm Highlights

  • News

    Karina Shareen Named 2026 Top Young Lawyer by Louisiana State Bar Association

  • Experience

    Summary Judgment Granted Following Successful Challenge to Plaintiff’s Expert

    Doug Vaughn and Peyton Farve obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death product liability lawsuit against an assembly line manufacturer by successfully moving to exclude the plaintiff's expert who had a perfect track record before this case and thereafter obtaining summary judgment on all claims brought by the family of a worker who died after reaching into moving machinery. The case had been pending in federal court in North Mississippi.
  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings

    Deutsch Kerrigan is proud to announce that five of our attorneys and two of our practice areas have been recognized in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious and trusted legal directories in the country. Ranked Practice Areas • Louisiana – Construction (Band 1) • Louisiana – Insurance (Band 2) Ranked Attorneys • Kelly Theard – Construction (Louisiana), Band 1  • Keith Bergeron – Construction (Louisiana), Band 2 • Brian Schaps – Construction (Louisiana), Band 3  • Terrence Brennan – Construction (Louisiana), Senior Statespeople • Frederic Theodore “Ted” Le Clercq – Labor & Employment (Louisiana), Band 4  Chambers USA is widely considered the leading resource for identifying top legal talent. Its rankings are the result of extensive independent research and interviews with clients and legal peers, assessing factors such as legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness, and commitment. We are honored to be recognized among the top in our field and remain committed to delivering the high-quality service our clients expect and deserve.
  • Experience

    Successfully Defended Restaurant Operator and Food Distributor Against $50 Million Product Liability Claim

    Anne Medo successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant operator and food distributor in a high-stakes product liability matter involving allegations that contaminated chicken nuggets caused a customer to develop severe medical complications. The plaintiff alleged that consumption of chicken nuggets purchased from a national food chain and distributed by Deutsch Kerrigan’s clients resulted in E. coli and Shigella infections, which he claimed led to significant cardiac issues and a stroke. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages. Prior to trial, Anne moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the required causal connection between the alleged foodborne illness and his subsequent health conditions. Specifically, the defense highlighted the absence of expert testimony necessary to support the plaintiff’s causation theories. In support of the motion, Anne presented testimony from an infectious disease expert and a cardiologist who opined that the alleged connection between the chicken nuggets and the plaintiff’s severe medical complications could not be established. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove causation and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims prior to trial.
  • Insight

    Navigating Louisiana’s New Litigation Landscape: Critical Updates for Insurance Companies

  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan celebrates 100 years of legal leadership across Louisiana and the Gulf Coast

  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims