Singletary v. Fridley
| Decision Date | 12 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99 CA 0944.,99 CA 0944. |
| Citation | 762 So.2d 692 |
| Parties | Huey Glen SINGLETARY, Glenda Slaydon, Scotty Kitchen and Nathan Dillard v. Lyle FRIDLEY, Executive Investigations & Associates, Inc., Crawford & Company, Inc., Asplundh Tree Expert Company, James M. Taylor, and Taylor, Wellons & Politz, L.L.C. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
William M. Magee, Covington, Counsel for Plaintiffs—Appellants—Huey Glen Singletary, et al.
Richard B. Eason, II, Robert N. Markle, New Orleans, Counsel for Defendants— Appellees—Crawford & Company, Inc. and Asplundh Tree Expert Company.
George J. Nalley, Jr., Dona J. Dew, Metairie, Counsel for Defendants—Appellees —James M. Taylor and Taylor, Wellons & Politz, L.L.C.
Roger D. Marlow, Covington, Counsel for Defendants—Lyle Fridley and Executive Investigations & Associates.
Before: GONZALES, FITZSIMMONS, and WEIMER, JJ.
Huey Singletary, Glenda Slaydon, Scotty Kitchen, and Nathan Dillard ("Singletary") appeal from summary judgments granted in favor of Crawford & Company, Inc. ("Crawford") and Asplundh Tree Expert Company ("Asplundh"), as well as James M. Taylor and Taylor, Wellons & Politz, L.L.C. (collectively "Taylor"). The summary judgments dismissed appellees from a lawsuit in which they had been named as parties on the basis of vicarious liability. Appellees, Crawford and Asplundh, answered the appeal, and sought payment of the legal costs at the trial and appellate levels of litigation. We affirm the grant of partial summary judgments; the claim for attorney fees is denied.
Mr. Singletary filed a claim in workers' compensation against his employer, Asplundh. He prevailed on the merits. The instant appeal arises out of Asplundh's investigation of Mr. Singletary's claim.1 Asplundh hired Crawford, an adjustor, to conduct an investigation of Mr. Singletary's claim. Crawford retained the services of Executive Investigations & Associates, Inc. ("Executive"); whereupon, Executive hired a private investigator, Lyle Fridley ("Fridley").
In the appeal, Singletary alleges that Fridley trespassed on the property of one of the plaintiffs for the purpose of making video tapes and intercepting oral communications involving Singletary. The video tapes were provided by Fridley to Executive, which turned them over to Crawford and/or Asplundh. The tapes were then passed on to a member of the Taylor law firm, which was representing Asplundh.
Singletary alleged that the manner in which Fridley obtained the electronic surveillance violated plaintiffs' right to privacy and was in contravention to the Electronic Surveillance Act. Asplundh, Crawford, and Taylor filed motions for partial summary judgment, which were granted by the court. On appeal, Singletary has alleged that the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgments in favor of Asplundh, Crawford, and Taylor.
It is solidly established that a master or employer is liable for the tortuous conduct of a servant or employee. La. C.C. art. 2320. Contrarily, an employer is not liable for the torts of an independent contractor employee committed in the course of performing his contractual duties. Two exceptions to this rule are: (1) when the injury results from an ultrahazardous activity; and, (2) when the principal reserves the right to supervise or control the work of the contractor. Boudreaux v. Farmer, 604 So.2d 641, 651 n. 9 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992), writs denied, 605 So.2d 1373, 1374 (La.1992). The right, as opposed to the act, of control by the employer of the employee's performance of the work defines the essence of the classification of the relationship between the parties. Arnold v. Airborne Freight Corporation, 94-1728, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir.7/18/95), 667 So.2d 1063, 1066,writ denied,96-0220 (La.3/15/96), 669 So.2d 420.
Appellees have maintained that Fridley operated as an independent contractor, rather than an employee; therefore, there is no vicarious liability. The Louisiana Supreme Court has explained that a relationship involving an independent contractor presupposes a contract between the parties for a specific task to be accomplished, the independent nature of the contractor's business and the nonexclusive means that the contractor may employ in accomplishing the task. The contractor should be free to employ his own method, subject only to the control and direction of the employer as to the result of the services to be rendered. Amyx v. Henry & Hall, 227 La. 364, 79 So.2d 483, 486 (1955).
In the situation at hand, the contractual agreement for services by Fridley involved only Executive; it did not include appellees. Even more critical to the resolution of this case is the fact that there was no evidence presented that Fridley's performance of the task of videotaping Singletary might have been subject to the control of any of the appellees. There is no indication in the record that any of the appellees instructed Executive, or participated in any way, with respect to the method of conducting Fridley's surveillance of Singletary. See La. C.C.P. art. 966 C(2). Irrespective of the classification of the employment relationship between Fridley and Executive, given the quite remote and removed association between Fridley and appellees, an alleged infraction of the law premised on...
To continue reading
Request your trial