Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Mid South Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

July 31, 2017

LARRY JONES, ET AL.
v.
MID SOUTH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., ET AL.

         SECTION “H”

          ORDER AND REASONS

          JANE TRICHE MILAZZO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Vicarious Liability (Doc. 34). For the following reasons, this Motion is GRANTED.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Larry Jones worked for Defendant Mid-South Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (“Mid-South”) as a Field Operations Manager on the renovation of Howard Elementary School in New Orleans. On May 8, 2014, David Herin, an owner of Mid-South and project manager at the Howard site, directed Plaintiff to fire employee Joseph Huval. Plaintiff alleges that Herin was aware of Huval's criminal past, propensity for violence, and tendency to exhibit aggressive behavior. When Plaintiff informed Huval that he was fired, Huval refused to leave and antagonized and provoked Plaintiff. Plaintiff then contacted Herin for assistance. He alleges that upon arriving at the scene, Herin failed to diffuse the situation and instead attempted to hit Huval with a tape measurer. When Plaintiff tried to prevent the altercation, Huval struck him in the head, knocking him out. He suffered a brain injury and neck injury as a result of this incident, ultimately necessitating a cervical fusion. He alleges that Mid-South is vicariously liable for the actions of Huval. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of vicarious liability. Defendant opposes.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”[1] A genuine issue of fact exists only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”[2]

         In determining whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment, the Court views facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor.[3] “If the moving party meets the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence or designate specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.”[4] Summary judgment is appropriate if the non-movant “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case.”[5] “In response to a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the manner in which that evidence supports that party's claim, and such evidence must be sufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the non-movant on all issues as to which the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial.”[6] “We do not . . . in the absence of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts.”[7] Additionally, “[t]he mere argued existence of a factual dispute will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion.”[8]

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff ask the Court to find that Defendant Mid-South is vicariously liable for the actions of Joseph Huval. Under Louisiana law, vicarious liability for intentional torts is governed by the standard articulated in LeBrane v. Lewis, 292 So.2d 216 (La. 1974). There, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that an employer was vicariously liable for the intentional tort of a supervisory employee who stabbed a former co-employee during a dispute that arose out of the supervisor's firing of the co-employee. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered the following factors:

(1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted;
(2) whether the act was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties;
(3) whether the act occurred on the employer's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.